On 4/11/2019 at 11:29 AM, Magnus Grendel said:

Resolving happens immediately after resolving , so it's hard to imagine something interrupting to change the TN between spending for a critical and determining that the check is a success (which is when the critical effect 'goes off') but it is theoretically possible. 

Off the top of my head, there's at least TWO things you can do with your Opps to lower the TN of your action: Open Hand Style can switch someone out of Air stance, and Water's "X Strike" kata can be used to remove Dazed from yourself, if you have it.

3 hours ago, JBento said:

Off the top of my head, there's at least TWO things you can do with your Opps to lower the TN of your action: Open Hand Style can switch someone out of Air stance, and Water's "X Strike" kata can be used to remove Dazed from yourself, if you have it.

Probably right, the attacking character using opportunities is, legit.

My issue is mostly with the defender using opportunities on a resist check.

I'll keep my "houserule"; no check can ne nested in another check.

That is mostly where my personal issue is. First because it is not fair since the attacker chose successes before the opponent's resist check, I don't agree the attacker should be punished for his action otherwise it makes a lot of techniques bad , and secondly because it makes the gameplay cumbersome and gamey to roll checks within checks.

To each their own though.

2 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

My issue is mostly with the defender using opportunities on a resist check.

I'll keep my "houserule"; no check can ne nested in another check.

That is mostly where my personal issue is. First because it is not fair since the attacker chose successes before the opponent's resist check, I don't agree the attacker should be punished for his action otherwise it makes a lot of techniques bad , and secondly because it makes the gameplay cumbersome and gamey to roll checks within checks.

It gets kind of iffy moving resist checks to the end of the turn as well though - I mean, the outcome of that check can be beneficial to the attacker as well and should certainly be of interest to the attacker in the first place. I think the bigger issue is what opportunities can allow you to do and especially which opportunities can be created by certain types of checks. I think if resist checks get limited to success/failure outcomes, no opportunities (nor strife) that'd be a significant improvement already. Opportunities are great in general, but a number of specific instances are not good for the game.

47 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

It gets kind of iffy moving resist checks to the end of the turn as well though - I mean, the outcome of that check can be beneficial to the attacker as well and should certainly be of interest to the attacker in the first place. I think the bigger issue is what opportunities can allow you to do and especially which opportunities can be created by certain types of checks. I think if resist checks get limited to success/failure outcomes, no opportunities (nor strife) that'd be a significant improvement already. Opportunities are great in general, but a number of specific instances are not good for the game.

Indeed, no opportunities on a resist check is my prefered way of playing the game.

Edit; and my houserule so far. Makes the game more visceral and faster.

On 4/9/2019 at 2:06 PM, deraforia said:

I sent off a couple of questions to the devs for clarification. We'll see if/when they get back to me.

Hey, @deraforia , sorry to ask, but did you follow thru with asking the devs ? I'm really curious how they will clarify this.

There are several attack cases where the TN might be other than the expected 2.

When using certain kata, the TN is their vigilance. When they are in Air, the GM might decide not to reveal their Conflict rank; if they're CR 4+, it's TN+2...

Sometimes, it's fun to not give them the missing values... not always.

3 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

There are several attack cases where the TN might be other than the expected 2.

When using certain kata, the TN is their vigilance. When they are in Air, the GM might decide not to reveal their Conflict rank; if they're CR 4+, it's TN+2...

Sometimes, it's fun to not give them the missing values... not always.

They way I read it, players are supposed to know the TN before rolling the dice. The GM can withhold that information and give them a Void Point in return.

So, yes, it is fun and an easy way to hand out VP at the same time.

I heard back today on the questions I sent. Here they are for context:

Hello, I had two questions regarding timing around Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade:

1 ) If I spend an opportunity from IC:RB to draw a second weapon and then spend an opportunity for the Mirumoto Two-Heavens Adept mastery ability Heart of the Dragon to perform a strike action with the second weapon, does the strike action resolve before finishing resolution of Rising Blade, or does Rising Blade finish resolving before the strike action is performed?

2) Let's say my opponent has a Vigilance of 3. If I use Rising Blade in fire stance, and I keep one success and one opportunity, and I use that opportunity to inflict strife on my opponent making them Compromised and setting their Vigilance to 1, does the TN change to 1 (meaning the attack succeeds), or does it remain at the initial TN of 3 (meaning the attack fails)?

I received this response:

Good question! This is definitely one of the more complex delves into the system's timing that has come in so far, so let's dig into it.

Case One:

So, we're in Step 6: Resolve Symbols on Kept Dice of a Martial Arts [Melee] (Fire) check for Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade. For the sake of the simulation, let's say that the results we're resolving, are:

<SU><SU><SU><OP><OP>

Opportunities are resolved third (step 6.3), before success or failure, so we'll start there.

You can spend <OP> (from Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade) to ready another sheathed Razor-edged weapon. That weapon is now eligible for use.

You can spend <OP> (from Heart of the Dragon) to perform a Strike action. As soon as you do this, though, everything from resolving the check for Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade goes on pause. You fully resolve the Strike, then return to resolving Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade.

Case Two:

Once again, we're in Step 6.3 of a Martial Arts [Melee] (Fire) check for Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade. This time, the kept results are:

<SU><OP>

You can spend <OP> (from default uses for Fire <OP>) to have your target gain 2 strife. This might cause them to become Compromised, dropping their vigilance to 1.

However, keep in mind that the TN was determined in Step 2.4. At that point, the GM extracts the number (and modifies it as relevant to the check). For our vigilance 3 NPC, that means the value is set at 3 (with a situational modifier if appropriate). In other words, at this point, the TN is not "equal vigilance," it is "3."

Thus, in step 6.4, when <SU> and <ES> results are compared to the TN, they are compared to 3, not 1.

Case Three:

Now, things do get extra interesting when you combine these two cases.

So, if we're back at Step 6.3 with the following results:

<SU><OP><OP><OP>

Our theoretical Mirumoto can spend <OP> to draw a wakizashi, <OP> to inflict 2 strife, and then <OP> to perform a Strike action. While resolving the Strike action, the target's vigilance is 1, not 3 (if this matters for the Strike action due to <OP>, or similar). Then, after the strike is fully resolved, the character returns to Step 6.4 of the Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade and resolves the check at TN 3 (and thus fails).

Conclusions

Ultimately, these situations are fairly edge-case, and the most important thing is that a GM rule consistently and in a way that is fun for their group. If the GM thinks it's more interesting to rule on the side of altering the TN after the target becomes Compromised during the check, that should function just fine. The team did some digging, and we couldn't find any significant ramifications to ruling it either way—Fire <OP> are marginally better if you allow it (as is Flowing Water Cut), but it's a pretty minor gain because of the specifics of the situations required to take advantage of it. So as long as the ruling at a particular table is consistent, it shouldn't cause issues!

Thanks for writing in with this question—it was a fun one to delve into—and I hope that this helps!

--
Max Brooke
RPG & Miniatures Developer

2 hours ago, deraforia said:

I received this response:

I definitely don't like the "put the check on pause" thing (tedious, confusing, slow gameplay).

also, in the answers they don't delve into the "what happens when the opponent uses opportunities on a resist check".

but overall, what I get from their answer is; "well, we didn't really thought about these cases while designing the game, so rule it somewhat how you think". And yeah, to say that these are "edge cases" clearly means that rank4+ testing (when resist checks are almost every turn) was minimal to say the least.

oh. well. at least this is an answer.

So...TN doesn't change once it's set. Fair enough.

2 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

So...TN doesn't change once it's set. Fair enough.

Max actually said it was GMs prerogative with the default being that the TN doesn't change, commenting that allowing for the TN to be modified made Fire opps more powerful. He did end that it was more important that the GM be consistent.

The GM is supposed to let the players know the target number of the check. I would say that's the point at which the TN is set, and if the GM doesn't specifically say they intend to change the TN and they do so anyway, it should basically be considered the same as if the GM hid the TN to begin with.. I'm not looking right now, but I believe this gives the players a void point.

30 minutes ago, Black_Rabbit_Inle said:

The GM is supposed to let the players know the target number of the check. I would say that's the point at which the TN is set, and if the GM doesn't specifically say they intend to change the TN and they do so anyway, it should basically be considered the same as if the GM hid the TN to begin with.. I'm not looking right now, but I believe this gives the players a void point.

True, but most things that could credibly change a TN 'during' a check would involve the person performing the check spending opportunities - which means it would be the player changing the TN, not the GM, in such a situation (at least for a check by a player).

4 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

True, but most things that could credibly change a TN 'during' a check would involve the person performing the check spending opportunities - which means it would be the player changing the TN, not the GM, in such a situation (at least for a check by a player).

unless the opponent makes a resist check and uses opportunities and "maybe" increase the TN.

that part was not answered by the devs.

gosh I hate resist checks... slow downs the game, abusable with opports..

oh. well.

Hmm....I guess?

Some sort of opportunity Kata requiring a check to resist - Breath of Wind Style*, for example - resisted by an opponent in water stance might net them a water and let them un-compromise themself. Which, if the action was Iaijutsu Cut: Rising Blade, would 'restore' the targets vigilance from 1 to its default value.

The problem is that whilst I agree with Max's comment, I also note that it doesn't cover everything.

I think the default that once a TN is set ("extracted" as he says), it doesn't change unless the effect explicitely changes the TN (rather than changing the stat you previously calculated the TN from) is sensible. I have no problem with that.

But there's a difference here between me spending fire to compromise you and drop your vigilance (when the TN has been set to what your vigilance was when we set it) and spending on Open Hand Style to push you out of Air Stance. Because that is changing the TN. I guess that falls under the 'situational modifier' comment, which means that by default, being forced out of air stance wouldn't change it either.