1 minute ago, Amanda the Panda said:

But there is no such thing as a 'move action' there is only an action, and actions have subtypes. In a turn you may adjust your rangeband and take an action, not take one of each type of action

Sure, but that logic would still mean that any situation/tech/ability that allowed you to use a Move action (without saying anything about an Attack) would allow you to use Crossing Blade, but not for instance a Strike or Rising Blade. That doesn't seem right to me.

11 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Sure, but that logic would still mean that any situation/tech/ability that allowed you to use a Move action (without saying anything about an Attack) would allow you to use Crossing Blade, but not for instance a Strike or Rising Blade. That doesn't seem right to me.

It is a logical consideration yes, and perhaps one that should be asked to be clarified my the designers.

EDIT: I have sent a message using the contact form, and requested that this issue be clarified

Well, the most pressing thing I pointed out was if you're Immobilized for any reason, you can't Crossing Cut. I don't think that will come up in most sword duels, but it might?

On 10/27/2018 at 2:38 PM, nameless ronin said:

Hang on. Crossing Blade is used as an Attack and a Move action. To me that means "and" - you're using both, so you need both. If that's not the case, that would apparently mean Crossing Blade can be used as a Move action. That seems weird and really counterintuitive.

edit: and massively overpowered, regardless of what Rising Blade can or can't do.

The traditional sideswing is an attack en passant - you strike as you step past to your left of the target.

As for massively overpowered? It only criticals when striking an "incapacitated" foe - one over endurance. It's also only +1 damage on a katana, chokutō, or scimitar... +2 damage on a wakizashi, tanto, or aiguchi. (Yeah, "Knife" meets the requirements for Iaijutsu)

On 10/27/2018 at 2:48 PM, nameless ronin said:

Sure, but that logic would still mean that any situation/tech/ability that allowed you to use a Move action (without saying anything about an Attack) would allow you to use Crossing Blade, but not for instance a Strike or Rising Blade. That doesn't seem right to me.

Also, several abilities have "Attack or Support" - and usually two distinctly different uses.

The lack of an "or" indicates it is a both attack and move action... requiring permission to use both types. Such as the action on one's turn, which allows any types or combination of types in the 1 action.
It wouldn't be useable in water stance with a second 1-band step (the first is the free one; the one from the movement action in water stance.)

Just now, AK_Aramis said:

The traditional sideswing is an attack en passant - you strike as you step past to your left of the target.

As for massively overpowered? It only criticals when striking an "incapacitated" foe - one over endurance. It's also only +1 damage on a katana, chokutō, or scimitar... +2 damage on a wakizashi, tanto, or aiguchi. (Yeah, "Knife" meets the requirements for Iaijutsu)

I meant potentially massively overpowered (which is my bad) if any action subtype being referenced can allow a tech to sub it in - in this case anything that would provide a Movement type action. It's just not clean rules language.

4 minutes ago, AK_Aramis said:

Also, several abilities have "Attack or Support" - and usually two distinctly different uses.

The lack of an "or" indicates it is a both attack and move action... requiring permission to use both types. Such as the action on one's turn, which allows any types or combination of types in the 1 action.
It wouldn't be useable in water stance with a second 1-band step (the first is the free one; the one from the movement action in water stance.)

Specifically then this would mean - this being the example I brought this up for in the first place - you couldn't use Crossing Blade for a Finishing Blow, nor a Strike if your weapon is not readied, but you could use Rising Blade.

4 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Specifically then this would mean - this being the example I brought this up for in the first place - you couldn't use Crossing Blade for a Finishing Blow, nor a Strike if your weapon is not readied, but you could use Rising Blade.

That sounds intentional.

1 minute ago, AK_Aramis said:

That sounds intentional.

Possibly, and it's the interpretation I favour myself - but from the reactions I've gotten it's definitely not a unanimous agreement. Because the rules aren't written tightly enough.

13 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Specifically then this would mean - this being the example I brought this up for in the first place - you couldn't use Crossing Blade for a Finishing Blow, nor a Strike if your weapon is not readied, but you could use Rising Blade.

p173:

As an action: ... if the action lists one or more types, it possesses each of those types.

Rule as Written... it can be used when something have a prerequisite of "an Attack action" (like finishing blow).

at least that is how i understand it.

but interesting point you brought up.

1 minute ago, Avatar111 said:

p173:

As an action: ... if the action lists one or more types, it possesses each of those types.

Rule as Written... if it possess both Attack and Movement... then it can be used when something have a prerequisite of "an Attack action" (like finishing blow).

at least that is how i understand it.

but interesting point you brought up.

That is the counterpoint, yes. Basically the question is: does something that has a prerequisite of "an Attack action" allow for the use of anything with the Attack subtype regardless of other subtypes, or allow for the use of anything with the Attack subtype and only the Attack subtype? The reason why I am not in favour or a ruleset that works with the latter option without any other qualifiers for such mechanics that I can see, is that it might let unintended techniques slip in where something provides a Movement type action and this can then also be used for Crossing Blade, or similar effects with shuji that combine Support and Scheme subtypes, and so on. Chances are relatively small that this will happen due to the nature of the various action types (it's not surprising the first example we see involves an Attack action), but to me that's bad writing.

7 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

That is the counterpoint, yes. Basically the question is: does something that has a prerequisite of "an Attack action" allow for the use of anything with the Attack subtype regardless of other subtypes, or allow for the use of anything with the Attack subtype and only the Attack subtype? The reason why I am not in favour or a ruleset that works with the latter option without any other qualifiers for such mechanics that I can see, is that it might let unintended techniques slip in where something provides a Movement type action and this can then also be used for Crossing Blade, or similar effects with shuji that combine Support and Scheme subtypes, and so on. Chances are relatively small that this will happen due to the nature of the various action types (it's not surprising the first example we see involves an Attack action), but to me that's bad writing.

I mean, earth stance mentions and "attack or scheme" action.

Meaning that if somebody uses and attack and movement action, or a sheme and support action, the earth stance boost doesnt work?

I would find that weird. But who knows! Probably would need to go thru every technique and see if that makes sense or not...

It is definitely not 100% clear as per the rules as written.

15 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

I mean, earth ring mentions and "attack or scheme" action.

Meaning that if somebody uses and attack and movement action, or a sheme and support action, the earth stance boost doesnt work?

I would find that weird. But who knows! Probably would need to go thru every technique and see if that makes sense or not...

It is definitely not 100% clear as per the rules as written.

No, because stances don't give anyone an action to be used for anything with the correct subtype(s). They check for the presence of subtypes.

That said, this is definitely a prime example of bad writing as well. A literal reading of the rules for the Earth stance says that in order for the benefit of Earth stance to kick in your opponent needs to make both Attack and Scheme action checks, not either. I know that is not what is intended. That sentence should use "or" instead of "and" (and arguably use the singular "check" instead of the plural "checks", or it doesn't work on single checks either).

edit: to be absolutely clear, that last bit is obviously just me being a syntax nazi for argument's sake. It's not going to cause any real problems in practice. I'm just mentioning it as another example of the book needing a few more passes with a rigourous editor.

As a tangential aside, anyone else annoyed that every single weapon in the book is listed in the index, but that same index can't point us to the right page to look up stances?

1 hour ago, AK_Aramis said:

That sounds intentional.

Crossing blade does a draw. So it does not need a weapon readied. You can also use an opportunity to draw a second weapon

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Crossing blade does a draw. So it does not need a weapon readied. You can also use an opportunity to draw a second weapon

Which isn't the point.

Got an answer back from FFG for my rules questions. Full text here

But the long and short of it is that 'Crossing Cut' can be used to deal a finishing blow.

Because of my second question - So possibly can 'predict' and 'wait'

1 minute ago, Amanda the Panda said:

Got an answer back from FFG for my rules questions. Full text here

But the long and short of it is that 'Crossing Cut' can be used to deal a finishing blow.

Because of my second question - So 'possibly' can predict and 'wait'

i don't think the wait action exists in duels. thank god.

though, with their answers, it also make it clear that rising cut is totally, totally overshadowed by crossing cut for duels. which is a bit sad that not both techniques are viable in their own way.

Just now, Avatar111 said:

i don't think the wait action exist in duels. thank god.

You are right. For the best

25 minutes ago, Amanda the Panda said:

You are right. For the best

Especially since dueling is essentially waiting with the more intricate and subtle flair of mental chess.

14 hours ago, nameless ronin said:

As a tangential aside, anyone else annoyed that every single weapon in the book is listed in the index, but that same index can't point us to the right page to look up stances?

yes.

2 hours ago, Amanda the Panda said:

Got an answer back from FFG for my rules questions. Full text here

But the long and short of it is that 'Crossing Cut' can be used to deal a finishing blow.

Because of my second question - So possibly can 'predict' and 'wait'

Thanks for getting an answer! I'm ok with how it shakes out, but a little apprehensive about the open-endedness of this. Oh well, if it becomes an issue later we'll deal with it then. In the meantime, I'll keep looking for upsides to Rising Blade.

6 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Thanks for getting an answer! I'm ok with how it shakes out, but a little apprehensive about the open-endedness of this. Oh well, if it becomes an issue later we'll deal with it then. In the meantime, I'll keep looking for upsides to Rising Blade.

The upside to Rising Blade is that it rocks in skirmishes, especially if someone on your team is going trigger happy with Pelting Hail Style.

4 minutes ago, JBento said:

The upside to Rising Blade is that it rocks in skirmishes, especially if someone on your team is going trigger happy with Pelting Hail Style.

It's definitely no dud. Might still be ok to find some extra usefulness in duels though. I don't intend to houserule it, I'm not hoping for an erratum either, but if some kind of duel-based rules interaction is discovered we've overlooked so far I'd be happy.

3 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

It's definitely no dud. Might still be ok to find some extra usefulness in duels though. I don't intend to houserule it, I'm not hoping for an erratum either, but if some kind of duel-based rules interaction is discovered we've overlooked so far I'd be happy.

if the opponent compromises, but you don't want to do the finishing blow.

so you look at him in the eyes and tell him "surrender, you are too weak".

then if he doesnt and miss his attack on you, the next turn you can rising cut him.

52 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

It's definitely no dud. Might still be ok to find some extra usefulness in duels though. I don't intend to houserule it, I'm not hoping for an erratum either, but if some kind of duel-based rules interaction is discovered we've overlooked so far I'd be happy.

Well situation might occur where you fail to hit with your Finishing Blow or you opt not to perform a Finishing blow due to it being disadvantageous for some reason. Rising Blade will still auto crit on compromised targets.

If a Finishing Blow triggered by compromising fails and then the target Unmasks they may quickly return to compromised as the amount of strife per round continues to rise each following round.