1 minute ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

I'm trying to point out all the bugs in the situation and if this was a video game this mess would be one that could possibly cause a fatal lockup/crash.

Teveshszat is triggering a buggy activation caused by the phrase "that can be wielded in a one-handed grip" not being included in Iaijutsu's activation entry. This inadvertently triggers another bug in the rules caused by a missing rule involving resolving impossible resolutions and what should be done in that case.

And here is the main diffrence I think. I do not assume that "can be wielded in a one-handed grip" is missing, it is simply not there.

It is definitly a solution to resolve the weirdness of the whole thing, but it is not he only solution. (You could remove "in a one-handed grip" form the effect for example, or give a one-handed grip to the naginata.)

All we can do is to read the rules as they currently are. And the ability can be activated with a naginata and resolve distinct from each other. This is all we know.

And your solution is to stop the game session at this point in time (fatal error naginatajutsu occurs) and my solution to resolve the first effect without anything actully happening and then move to the second effect (also throw exception "post on the beta forums how stupid this is").

On that note I want to point out that iaijutsu is used on a target in range 1-2.

A katana has range 1, a naginata has range 2 and a knife has range 0 (all are razor-edged).

You can read the range of iaijutsu in two ways.

1. The range of the technique is used instead of the weapon. Allowing you to strike people in range 2 with a knife, which is odd but perhaps the force of you drawing a knife travels so far. Would be really animeesk.
2. It is an additonal restriction on the range the attack can resolve in. So no razor-edged attacks of range 0 with a knife, but on range 1 or 2 with katana and naginata respectively.

Knife and Naginata seem to be really odd weapons to perform iaijutsu with, but form the two readings I have one of them is an intended iaijutsu weapon.

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

And here is the main diffrence I think. I do not assume that "can be wielded in a one-handed grip" is missing, it is simply not there.

It is definitly a solution to resolve the weirdness of the whole thing, but it is not he only solution. (You could remove "in a one-handed grip" form the effect for example, or give a one-handed grip to the naginata.)

Both of your suggestions are counter to the action/weapon as intended. My suggestion fixes the glaring omission that Teveshszat's suggestion tries to abuse.

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

All we can do is to read the rules as they currently are. And the ability can be activated with a naginata and resolve distinct from each other. This is all we know.

And your solution is to stop the game session at this point in time (fatal error naginatajutsu occurs) and my solution to resolve the first effect without anything actully happening and then move to the second effect (also throw exception "post on the beta forums how stupid this is").

The proper action you should take in this case if a player brings it up in game is to say "No, action fails make a different action instead." "Post about it in the proofreading section, make suggestions on how to fix it and then wait until they release the next edition of the Beta. Until then avoid triggering the bug."

Your solution to resolve and attempt to play through is actually the wrong thing to do in this case.

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

On that note I want to point out that iaijutsu is used on a target in range 1-2.

A katana has range 1, a naginata has range 2 and a knife has range 0 (all are razor-edged).

You can read the range of iaijutsu in two ways.

1. The range of the technique is used instead of the weapon. Allowing you to strike people in range 2 with a knife, which is odd but perhaps the force of you drawing a knife travels so far. Would be really animeesk.
2. It is an additonal restriction on the range the attack can resolve in. So no razor-edged attacks of range 0 with a knife, but on range 1 or 2 with katana and naginata respectively.

Knife and Naginata seem to be really odd weapons to perform iaijutsu with, but form the two readings I have one of them is an intended iaijutsu weapon.

The intended interpretation is interpretation 1 not 2. A technique's range overrides the weapon's range. The Iaijutsu technique is intended to allow those carrying a sheathed Katana, Wakazashi, Chukuto, Unicorn Scimitar and Knife to make a one handed attack with a sheathed unready blade that can hit targets 0 to 2 range bands away to mimic scenes where users of Iaijutsu strike opponents outside the weapons accepted range.

If a technique contains the phrase “at range [number]” or “at range [number]–[number]” in relation to a target or area it affects, it can only affect those targets or areas that fall within the specified range. If a technique would affect a target beyond the specified range, the effects of the technique are not resolved against that target, as described in Choosing Targets Outside of Range, on page 155.

7 hours ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

Both of your suggestions are counter to the action/weapon as intended. My suggestion fixes the glaring omission that Teveshszat's suggestion tries to abuse.

The proper action you should take in this case if a player brings it up in game is to say "No, action fails make a different action instead." "Post about it in the proofreading section, make suggestions on how to fix it and then wait until they release the next edition of the Beta. Until then avoid triggering the bug."

Your solution to resolve and attempt to play through is actually the wrong thing to do in this case.

I respectfully disagree in all points.

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

I respectfully disagree in all points.

The thing is this is a beta. If the rule can be misinterpreted or abused then it needs to be brought up to the writers so it can be fixed. Why would you not want to do that?

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

The thing is this is a beta. If the rule can be misinterpreted or abused then it needs to be brought up to the writers so it can be fixed. Why would you not want to do that?

Agreed. If something can be misinterpreted accidentally because it's not clear and "that's how I read it" or willfully because a player is going "I think I've found a rules loophole that I can read in a way that gives my character an advantage and I'm hanging onto it like a rottweiler with a lamb shank", if it's wrong, now is the time to identify and fix it; in this case either by:

1. Noting the requirement for the weapon to have a legal one-handed grip in the activation requirement
2. Noting in the effect that you deliver damage equal to the deadliness of the 'readied weapon'
3. Making the draw step 'if the weapon has a one-handed grip' to make it clear that you can do the 'inflict' step without the 'draw' step.

My personal preference would be (2), because of the possibility of future weapons (or techniques) which result in weapons with multiple different 1-handed grips; since the grip often modifies the deadliness of the weapon, you will need to explicitly refer to the grip the readied weapon is in (as per the Strike action) to get the 'correct' statline.

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

The thing is this is a beta. If the rule can be misinterpreted or abused then it needs to be brought up to the writers so it can be fixed. Why would you not want to do that?

This is exactly what I want to do...

I rather think that it is more helpful to embrase the abuse and get a grasp of its full extend. I want to encourage my player to hand me all the abuse, to really ask themselves "How can I break this?".

Let's break the rulebook with a loud CRACK and then let's talk about where the weak places are. I am not houseruling stuff on the fly and I am not purposefully avoiding broken parts of the rulebook. I let everything happen, and then I post on these forums.

20 hours ago, Yandia said:

And here is the main diffrence I think. I do not assume that "can be wielded in a one-handed grip" is missing, it is simply not there.

It is definitly a solution to resolve the weirdness of the whole thing, but it is not he only solution. (You could remove "in a one-handed grip" form the effect for example, or give a one-handed grip to the naginata.)

All we can do is to read the rules as they currently are.

Which I don't think you are doing, actually. The Effect block is one block in three paragraphs, not three blocks of 1 paragraph each.

20 hours ago, Yandia said:

And the ability can be activated with a naginata and resolve distinct from each other. This is all we know.

Assumes facts not present in consensual reality.

20 hours ago, Yandia said:

And your solution is to stop the game session at this point in time (fatal error naginatajutsu occurs) and my solution to resolve the first effect without anything actully happening and then move to the second effect (also throw exception "post on the beta forums how stupid this is").

No fatal error, simply, "Disallowed as unsupported by the rules. Invoke failure and move on."

2 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Which I don't think you are doing, actually. The Effect block is one block in three paragraphs, not three blocks of 1 paragraph each.

Assumes facts not present in consensual reality.

No fatal error, simply, "Disallowed as unsupported by the rules. Invoke failure and move on."

Conesenual what?
Reality stays reality independet of consens.
Also there is no assumption of facts in this argumentation. Page 155 clearly says that you treat each paragraph independiently, not each block of text,
as its own distinct effect. That means if paragrap a does not work it has no consequnce for paragaph b.
So if we apply this on the iaijutsu technique the lack of being able to get the naginata in the one handed grip (paragrapa) does not work

Since the if you suceed part is a seperate paragrap that refers to the dice roll and not to the one handed grip with the sucess condition, it still resolves if you pass the test.
The reason for that is that
a) its its own paragraph and therefore resolves independiently form a
b) all conditions mentioned in paragraph b has been met and so it resolves.

Thats how the rules work and yes this silly thing is supported by RAW.

6 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

consensual reality

I hope you are aware that this thing doesn't exist...

This became a Mage: The Awakening discussion all of a sudden!

2 hours ago, Yandia said:

I hope you are aware that this thing doesn't exist...

Check the DSM... not believing in it is by definition diagnostic for many disorders. Not paricipating for a subset, but several of which render one legally a ward of the state...

18 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Check the DSM... not believing in it is by definition diagnostic for many disorders. Not paricipating for a subset, but several of which render one legally a ward of the state...

That is not quiet unchallanged as you want it to be. There is a controversy about this fact as recent findings in neuroscience come to the conclusion that the model of
consensual reality is far from being accurate. So it is not quiet as unchallnged as you say it is and no one is by default mentally ill just because they don´t share your opinion.

30 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Check the DSM... not believing in it is by definition diagnostic for many disorders. Not paricipating for a subset, but several of which render one legally a ward of the state...

A full and correct reference would possibly have looked a bit less forced.

(Also goes for the "recent findings", @Teveshszat )

But I have to say, I do like how this picks up my sanity-shattering theme from up-thread again.

Double-post due to beta rules update.

Well played, FFG!

In the new version, they removed the paragraph break between the effects, making it into a single effects.

1 hour ago, blut_und_glas said:

A full and correct reference would possibly have looked a bit less forced.

(Also goes for the "recent findings", @Teveshszat )

But I have to say, I do like how this picks up my sanity-shattering theme from up-thread again.

Perceptive of you to notice...

I'm implying strongly that Yandia's approach is either delusional, intentionally thick-headed, and/or intentionally oppositional; the 3 paragraphs (Activation, Effects 1, effects 2) are a sequence, not independent; You don't go on to ¶2 if ¶1 is incomplete, because 1 lacks a conditional, and don't use ¶3 if either ¶1 or ¶2 are incomplete. Simple logic of sequence in writing, and standard format for instructions in the English and Russian languages, and for what I've seen of Spanish and Church Latin, as well. And also, all the programming languages I've used that have a conditional jump. If there were a ¶4, and it said "if you fail...", then it would be independent of ¶2.

Not taking it sequentially is inherently procedurally absurd.

in the case of Iajutsu, the success/failure predicates upon being able to put it into a 1 handed grip every bit as much as the die roll.

Other issues with Yandia's read:

• "Blade" in common martial arts use generally does not include polearms, and the naginata is a polearm (specifically, the Japanese equivalent of the glaive or polearm-handled seax - in all three cases, a heavy blade atop a man-height pole, usually with a tang about twice as long as a similar length sword-blade. There are exceptions:
  • blade in a polearm context is a component, not the weapon itself.
  • Traveller (and games derived from it) make polearms a subset of blade combat.
• The naginata is only range 2, so a good portion of the time, it automatically fails anyway.
• it ignores the descriptive paragraph;
  • one does not "Draw" a naginata; one unsheathes, sure, but it is not "drawn" in English.
    • I cannot speak to the terms in Japanese, but I don't think the rules are written in Japanese then translated.
  • one cannot unsheath and cut in a single fluid motion with a naginata in its normal sheathed mode
    • One may hold it mid-to-high on the shaft, unstrap the cover, and slide it off, then swing
    • One may hold it mid-to-high on the shaft, unstrap the cover, and then make a 2-hand shift-swing - awkward, but doable
    • One may hold it mid-to-high on the shaft, unstrap the cover, and then make a 1-hand short-hafted-swing - very awkward, and very weak
    • one may carry it with the sheath unstrapped but on - the social equivalent of rotation of the Katana, and make a single swing to clear, then a thrust or chop.
    • one may simply strike without drawing it.
  • The Nagi and the Tō family are different in their sheaths.
    • The katana, wakizashi, and other 1-handed capable blades, including the shorter no-dachi (3-4 shaku) that preparation can be done with the other hand - a standard technique in iaido, and referenced in period iaijutsu manuals.
    • the sheath on the naginata is of a slightly different style; removal requires swinging it forward rotating on the tip, rather than pulling it straight outward in line of the handle, as it secures over the bezel.
      • Note that the Yari, a snap swing will send the cover flying if not secured, but requires two hands for effective use, and it's a thrusting weapon, so the strike is less effective
      • The naginatas I've seen (3 with sheaths), that technique fails to clear the sheath from the blade.
      • the choppy swing that will clear the unstrapped sheath is not a smooth one.
    • carrying it unstrapped is hard on the tip of the blade. A dishonor to the weapon and oneself if done regularly.

21 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

I'm implying strongly that Yandia's approach is either delusional, intentionally thick-headed, and/or intentionally oppositional; the 3 paragraphs (Activation, Effects 1, effects 2) are a sequence, not independent;

Technical is the word you are locking for. The rules are a technical document and I read them as such. I do not apply fluff or sense to what I read I just follow the rules as they are written. And I stated many times that I think the outcome is silly.

However I do still think that it is a perfectly true reading of the rules and with the rules update I feel rather validated.

They simply removed the paragraph between the two effect lines binding the two effects together. If one of the effects is canceled due to imposibility (there is no one-handed naginata grip) the other fails as well and vice versa.

With the rules update iaijutsu with a naginata is no longer possibles, because the the effects are no longer to be interpreted as seperate effects.

All your other issues you mentioned are in nature not technical issues and therefore non of my concern. The rulebook has to work on a mechanical level, which it now does.

On 10/25/2017 at 4:11 PM, Yandia said:

Technical is the word you are locking for. The rules are a technical document and I read them as such. I do not apply fluff or sense to what I read I just follow the rules as they are written. And I stated many times that I think the outcome is silly.

However I do still think that it is a perfectly true reading of the rules and with the rules update I feel rather validated.

They simply removed the paragraph between the two effect lines binding the two effects together. If one of the effects is canceled due to imposibility (there is no one-handed naginata grip) the other fails as well and vice versa.

With the rules update iaijutsu with a naginata is no longer possibles, because the the effects are no longer to be interpreted as seperate effects.

All your other issues you mentioned are in nature not technical issues and therefore non of my concern. The rulebook has to work on a mechanical level, which it now does.

The descriptor paragraph is still rules. It's in the rules portion of the book, and describes the action.

I intend to get rid of the weapon damage against armor. No way lamanent armor breaks a katana.

If you were fighting a European knight in plate, I could see the issue. I can also agree that certain mythical creatures have hides tough enough to damage them, but no way I'll use it on samurai armor.

5 hours ago, SideshowLucifer said:

I intend to get rid of the weapon damage against armor. No way lamanent armor breaks a katana.

If you were fighting a European knight in plate, I could see the issue. I can also agree that certain mythical creatures have hides tough enough to damage them, but no way I'll use it on samurai armor.

The level od damage implied is a significant, but repairable, chip. Think something that 10 minutes and a grinder can reshape the entire length to undo. (with pendaled grinders, expect more like 2 hours, but still...)

47 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

The level od damage implied is a significant, but repairable, chip. Think something that 10 minutes and a grinder can reshape the entire length to undo. (with pendaled grinders, expect more like 2 hours, but still...)

One the nature of the Damaged trait would indicate far more damage then this.

Damaged, increase the TN of checks using it by 1. If
a weapon becomes Damaged, decrease the damage it deals and its deadliness
by 2 (to a minimum of 0).

This would give a Katana damage:2 , deadliness: 3 making it worse then a Knife.

Second the one bad roll sword breaks mechanic of it seem extreme.

Third to fix it requires the use of smithing which is normally not all that common among Samurai. Because of this I see smithing becoming a must have skill to use swords in this game.

This also brings up the issues with every samurai having to add durability to their blade just to protect it from this effect.

This leads to more meta-gaming that I don't think is necessary for the game.

A character with Earth 1 has 50% chance to repair their weapon without smithing. With Earth 2 they have ~75% chance to do so. With Earth 3, ~88% chance to do so. There is no need for every samurai to invest into Smithing to perform basic maintenance and care of their weapons. Note that maintenance&repair is not even a downtime activity, it is a single action.

Also, again, "one bad roll to destroy the blade" is an exaggeration, as nothing is forcing you to keep enough successes to hit but not pierce armor. Narratively, that would be a samurai who just can't find an opening and angle to attack from.

3 minutes ago, WHW said:

A character with Earth 1 has 50% chance to repair their weapon without smithing. With Earth 2 they have ~75% chance to do so. With Earth 3, ~88% chance to do so. There is no need for every samurai to invest into Smithing to perform basic maintenance and care of their weapons. Note that maintenance&repair is not even a downtime activity, it is a single action.

This is not expressly stated in the rule.

What you are referring to is the chart on page 85. and i quote

Performing maintenance on a sword after normal use in battle

unless you are stating that Normal use includes damaging your sword which is a problem in and of itself that doesn't work.

3 minutes ago, WHW said:

Also, again, "one bad roll to destroy the blade" is an exaggeration, as nothing is forcing you to keep enough successes to hit but not pierce armor. Narratively, that would be a samurai who just can't find an opening and angle to attack from.

The idea of missing on purpose to avoid an arbitrary rule in the game is the to me game-breaking. At best it takes you out of immersion in the game. At worst is is meta-gaming to the extreme.

It is only immersion breaking if you choose to narrate it in a way of it being so. Dice offer up possibilities, and your character simply made a split second decision to not take the risk. Again, while you could basically consider armored foes to have higher TN to damage them using a sword, this allows you a choice of making a sacrifice (damaging a sword) in order to, say, crit the target.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that TN1 Smithing is supposed to be repair option, while TN1+Opportunity is supposed to be "and add durable on top of that!". It is a really basic task.

28 minutes ago, WHW said:

It is only immersion breaking if you choose to narrate it in a way of it being so. Dice offer up possibilities, and your character simply made a split second decision to not take the risk. Again, while you could basically consider armored foes to have higher TN to damage them using a sword, this allows you a choice of making a sacrifice (damaging a sword) in order to, say, crit the target.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that TN1 Smithing is supposed to be repair option, while TN1+Opportunity is supposed to be "and add durable on top of that!". It is a really basic task.

Have you ever own a real sword, because fixing a blade damaged to the point that the Damaged trait seem to indicate is no where near a simple or basic task.

Most of the time the sword would have to be reforged to be brought back to usable condition.

I take TN1 Smithing to mean basic cleaning, oiling, and maybe sharpening.

As to the first point, most game do not keeps track of weapon damage as a core rule for the simple fact that it can destroy the flow of the game.

I'm fighting an oni and he is beating on my friend. I as a character am not going to hold back because I might damage my sword.

But as a player I will miss on purpose to keep it from happening. You can roll play this anyway you want to but its still meta-gaming.

Its a rule that is their to add more drama to a scene that doesn't in my view need it.

As I have said before if they made it harder to happen or made it a three strikes you out type of thing I would not mind it so much.

But as it stands right now I think the rule is a mess and needs work.

The things you mention being needed I would put under repairing a DESTROYED blade.

"Routine wear and tear and a lack of proper maintenance can mar an
item as readily as extraordinary circumstances on the battlefield can,
so samurai must carefully maintain their kit in the field. While the
most elevated samurai likely have staff to assist with such matters, most
battle-tested samurai have learned at least a bit about how to keep their
equipment functional." <-- Damaged

"Extreme events or long use without maintenance can completely shatter,
tear, or otherwise render an item nonfunctional.
Such an item is broken and cannot be used for its intended func-
ion. It might still be usable as an improvised weapon or tool, at the
GM’s discretion." <-- Destroyed

As per Oni beating your friend - then you break your sword upon Onis hide, and you both die, I guess. Or your samurai might keep their head cool and instead of ramming their sword pointlessly against the Oni they might guard their friend (Guard maneuver), try to find a vulnerable spot on the demon (fish for bonus successes, use Opportunities despite the miss, etc), or do a make it or break it effort, which in this dice resolution system would be akin to rolling a success and an explosion, and keeping both hoping that you will get another success from exploding (you keep first, explode second).

Again, I battle tested these rules, and they made players more immersed, rather than the other way around.