Can you "manoeuvre" a someone into a hole/pit?

I imagine not. You could always talk to your GM about it though. Maybe if you were really clever in how you RP it, and took an opposed INT you/PER him test, followed by the opposed WS test, with a serious bonus to him if he wins the previous one, it might be possible. Otherwise, I'd assume that it was to avoid that kind of situation that the ''no obstacles'' clause was added.

I would allow it simply because it´s creative.

"This is IMPERIUM!"

I think it depends on how aware the opponent is that there is this hole.

If you're fighting on the enemiey turf, forget about it. If somone follows you into an abandoned building where neither of you was before, why not. he might not even have seen the hole.

And what would happen if you tried to manoeuvre the enemy into the hole, win the opposed WS and he know there's a hole there?

He just goes "nuh uh, I don't feel like moving" and that's that? If you have that option, why would you need a hole to invoke it?

Or does he say "I don't feel like moving just there, but any of these directions are fine"? Same thing there, why would you need the hole? Couldn't it just as well be "I don't feel like moving towards X" where X is any place that's not in his favour to move, guys with guns, a patch of ice or really anything dangerous.

Moving your opponent into bad places is the entire point of manoeuvre, that a really deep hole is a worse place than some others shouldn't have much impact imo.

I have seen this done once in my game a while ago, a guardsmen was in melee with an orc and the arbite of the group called for a tacticle retreat. The guardsmen knew there was a quicksand pit right behind him(the group's adept had discovered it to his dismay and they were finishing recovery operations when the orcs attacked) so he disengaged and made a -30 agi test to jump backwards over the pit(he failed the first roll but used a faith point to finally make it.) The ork then being rather orky decided to charge-straight into the pit. I am not sure this is exactly what you ment, but hope it gave you an idea of how if could work.

I would allow it.

In the end you force your opponent to move on your terms by applying pressure. The opponent has to evade in the direction you want him to in order to avoid harm.

But one could consider to allow the target to test agility before it is finally dumped. Also, if not, that's fine too. That's the whole deal of holes beeing around in the first place, isn't it? If you allow yourself being forced to lose your footing, Darwin demands you be dumped.

"Why do we fall, Bruce?"

"So that me might learn to pick ourselves up again."

I would certainly allow it. It is nice and creative.

However, it has to be made into a tactical choice rather than the "one and only way to fight". If not, then I can well imagine how every fight on ledges and catwalks will look from now on.

Just as a opponent can dodge or parry to avoid damage from a straight attack, I would allow a dodge or parry to cancel the forced move - Using the reaction, of course. This also makes it a lot easier for two guys to force another into the pit or off the ledge.

Depending on the importance of the character being forced into dire straits I would also allow a test of Agility or the like to narrowly avoid falling by catching a ledge some meters down. Important characters would be PC and most if not all named NPCs. This is to avoid making the manoeuvre into the "insta-gib" attack of choice.

Fate points apply as normal, of course.

I don't see how it is creative. It's just a case of players trying to bend rules to their advantage.

I'm hesitant to allow it, because it runs the risk of making fights that are supposed to be difficult all too easy - just manoeuvre them over the railing, or into the pit.

In my view, the only situation where it would be possible is where the opponent is unaware of said pit, otherwise he'd try to do anything to prevent it. I would justify that to players by saying that he simply fights back with such ferocity that the move is not possible.

A better way to do it would be to manoeuvre him in the right direction, then knock him over. It's also more realistic IMO.

Also, a more creative use would be manoeuvrering enemies to either act as shields against the shots of say of an enemy sniper, or to reduce the chance of your ally hitting you with his shots, or evem to put them into the path of a speeding truck driven by an ally - that sort of team play that is worth bonus xp.

EDIT: there's only one situation I could think of that would work - rotten floorboards snapping beneath you, since a) it's an open space to begin with, and b) chances are nobody noticed it.

I think I would allow it, mostly because of the D&D 4E forced movement rules. I would allow it but I would also allow the mob/npc/ect ect being moved to take an agility test. If they pass, they fall prone at the edge of the like in D&D 4E. Now if the next acolyte in initiative kicks him into a hole, well that's battle.

scscofield said:

Different system, different rules though. It's understandable that you'd want to keep a semblance of uniformity, but the fact remains that different systems allow different things.

You have to figure that the Manoeuvre action relies on an opponent's implicit self-preservation drive. They are only moving as you want them to because to do otherwise would mean that you strike them with your weapon. That's why it requires a weapon skill test, you are weaving a trap with your weapon which only has one escape. In other words, the choices the opponent has are: move in the only direction left open to them, or suffer a blow from your weapon.

This means that, if an opponent is willing to be hit by your weapon rather than move, it should be "impossible" to manoeuvre them. They would most likely move in the direction of ice, an open line of fire from other enemies, etc. to avoid immediate damage by the attacker. And of course, if they are unaware of the danger of their new footing, they will be almost certain to move.

In this manner, I'd rule that if the opponent is aware of the (quite deep) pit then there's no way in hell you can manoeuvre them off. Simply put, your only inducement is "don't get hit by my sword" and that loses out to "fall to your death". No one would dodge off a catwalk into oblivion because someone threatened to stab them.

On the other hand, this makes it quite simple to force enemies into dangers they are not aware of, because they will gladly avoid a weapon strike by going into (what they assume is) safe territory.

The whole test to force them to move a meter aspect of it is why I figure it would be allowable. It's the whole hollywood aspect of that type of situation. The bad/good guy is forced off the edge in the climatic big battle type thing. The other attack/move aspects in the game do not really allow for this type of dramatics. It says in the book you can not force them into another character or obstacle but it then gives examples of solid objects like walls and barrels.

The comment that they would take the hit instead of moving if it meant falling off the hole makes me think I would give a bonus to the opposed WS check by the mob being pushed in situations where they could fall off a edge. I would still allow the attempt though for my prior reasons stated.

At Last Forgot said:

Makes sense.

But what action would one use to push him from that ledge?

Elesthor said:

An opposed strength-test?

Storhamster said:

As I have said before, a Knock-down move (page 190) in the direction of the pit/hole/whatever. Or just pushing a Stunned/Surprised enemy.