Lecram said:

Theoretically, it did, but I'm extremely leery of advocating a foreign translation as a valid source for clarification. It's good for me, because I'm used to treating this action that way, but is it objectively valid? Did the translator consult anyone or did he just go with what he thought worked? I don't know. Hence, caution is advised.

Lecram said:

If Delay can't insert itself in the middle of someone's turn, it destroys a lot of basic utility such as protecting someone by shooting everyone who gets too close, or attacking the sorcerer the moment he starts looking at you funny.

A) So you can't evade, say, a overloading plasma weapon or a peril of the warp caused by yourself.

You can evade attacks . Neither of those two would likely qualify as one.

B) Counters. If evasions are allowed on one's own turn, a simple parry can quickly become an absurdly long chains of ripostes if both characters are good hitters with counter attack. Gets even more absurd if they have step aside and one of them just took a defensive move. It also devalues the talent a bit, since one of it's most brutal strengths is that it can't be evaded.

I'm not sure what makes "2" an "absurdly long chain". Step aside adds 2, true, but Defensive Stance merely draws an attack that would have happened anyway into another initiative phase and makes the whole chain less likely to continue since it subtracts another 20 WS, coming to a total penalty of 40.
Also, Counterattack is T2, not T3. Considering Killing Strike that also ignores Evasion is T2 as well and needs an IP to be activated, I don't think it's supposed to be that much more powerful...
An additional attack with almost no strings attached (besides it being unavailable when going All-Out) is nothing to sneeze at in any case.

Not much relevant in Black Crusade, but in Deathwatch, it was a real problem if two guys activated Stalwart Defense.

You can evade attacks. Neither of those two would likely qualify as one.

A fair argument. But the game never really defines attacks. Do they require active effort? Do they need to be willful? You can dodge a plasma grenade shoved into your face, why can't you dodge it when your weapon explodes like a plasma grenade? And what about environmental things, like falling rocks? Can you dodge that, can a power field stop it? And if no, then what if someone picks up the rock and drops it on you, can you dodge it then? And if yes, why are they different?

I'm not sure what makes "2" an "absurdly long chain". Step aside adds 2, true, but Defensive Stance merely draws an attack that would have happened anyway into another initiative phase and makes the whole chain less likely to continue since it subtracts another 20 WS, coming to a total penalty of 40.
Also, Counterattack is T2, not T3. Considering Killing Strike that also ignores Evasion is T2 as well and needs an IP to be activated, I don't think it's supposed to be that much more powerful...
An additional attack with almost no strings attached (besides it being unavailable when going All-Out) is nothing to sneeze at in any case.

Except it's not quite 2. Lemme demonstrate.

Fighter number 1 goes into Defensive stance, and has step aside alongside counter attack. He now has 3 reactions.

Fighter 2 attacks and hits. He also has step aside and counter attack. 1 attack resolution so far. He now has 2 reactions.

Figher 1 parries, counters, succeeds. 2 attack resolutions so far, fighter 1 has 2 reactions left.

Fighter 2 parries, counters, succeeds. 3 attack resolutions so far, fighter 2 has 1 reaction left.

Fighter 1 parries, counters, succeeds. 4 attack resolutions so far, fighter 1 has 1 reaction left.

Fighter 2 parries, counters, succeeds. 5 attack resolutions so far, fighter 2 is out of reactions.

Fighter 1 parries, counters, succeeds. 6 attack resolutions so far, fighter 1 is out of reactions.

This is obviously a worst case scenario. But it's possible. Without reactions being prohibited one one's own turn, you can be forced to resolve 6 separate attacks within one single turn. Not round, TURN.

As for penalties, yes, defensive stance adds 20. However, counter attack allows a standard attack. That's +10. With a best quality weapon, that's +20. The original penalty is null, and the attacker is down to -20 total. It's not that hard to get a character who has a 40% or more chance of making that hit. Not exactly impossible. Hell, if he's a psyker, he can precog strike before every attack and get at least +10. If he's a solid psyker with good equipment and a good Focus power test, he can easily come out of this with not only a 70+ percent chance of making those tests, but with a final to-hit modifier that's positive. He could probably even afford to fetter and still be in the positive, if he has a good psy rating. It's a lot of xp but hey, you could do it.

And that's without even touching on the fact that, well, you can all-out attack with counter attack. Effin' skeevy, but the rules allow you to make any attack that doesn't generate multiple hits. So when you're down to your last reaction (Which in the example above, takes a while) you might as well go all out!

Also, killing strike is an almost surefire hit. It's a modifier to all-out attack, and thus stacks with all the various things that add to or compliment all-out attack. Charges, weapons. Hell, possibly even Furious Assault, since killing strike is rather clearly a bonus. So a +50 attack that can't be evaded, combined with something that benefits from DoS like Lightinng Claws? Throw in Crushing and Hammer blow, and any other talents that just heap on damage or special qualities etc and you got one HELL of a painful hit.

Counters, meanwhile, have a penalty instead of a bonus, and are situational. They require you to be in melee, they require you to be hit and they require you to successfully parry. Killing strike merely requires you to really wanna hit something.

Oh and for extra fun exploits with All-out attack: It prevents dodges or parries. It does not prevent you from spending reactions, so you can still, say, use precog dodge! That's a focus power test with a reaction activation that EMULATES a evasion test. It isn't one. Ain't that just grand?

Uh, Mort, I think you might be overdoing this "Rules as Written" thing.

Morangias said:

The all-out attack thing is, well, it's skeevy, as mentioned. Legal, clearly, but ******* skeevy.

The whole "why Killing strike is equal to counter attack" thing is also serious, although the Furious assault thing... I honestly have no idea if that's intended. I'd probably say no, but I alas lack mind reading powers.

The All-out attack+ Precog dodge thing was just a fun observation. Fluff-wise, I suspect you could justify it, and there's the usual risk of Phenomena to balance it, and you'd still lose any step aside, but mostly I highlighted it as yet another possible issue.

This game has those. In spades. Shame really, it's a solid product apart from that.

@Reverend Mort

A fair argument. But the game never really defines attacks. Do they require active effort? Do they need to be willful? You can dodge a plasma grenade shoved into your face, why can't you dodge it when your weapon explodes like a plasma grenade? And what about environmental things, like falling rocks? Can you dodge that, can a power field stop it? And if no, then what if someone picks up the rock and drops it on you, can you dodge it then? And if yes, why are they different?

I think I lost you somewhere. Are you saying that because the difference between an attack and a non-attack is rather debateable, the "stuff happens on your turn" vs "stuff happens on other people's turn" rule is a better one? Because considering that people don't somehow stop moving when their turn is over, I quite fail to see the logic behind that one. It's supposed to be impossible to dodge while you're acting, but afterwards it's entirely fine? Even more interesting: By your logic, a character with a delayed action could drop a grenade on his feet and dodge it - because it wouldn't be his turn.
Nope, I think just having the GM abjudicate on a case-by-case basis what's dodgeable and what isn't will produce more believable results.

Except it's not quite 2. Lemme demonstrate.

Your demonstration had two problems. Firstly, yes, two characters with Step Aside add at most two counters compared to two characters without SA, since they add two reactions. Secondly, once we move out of a strict duel situation, the total number of attack rolls per round does not change whether Evasion is allowed against a counter or not, because assuming a character is hit two times per round, he can counter twice. Defensive Stance changes nothing at all because it merely postpones the attack in your turn until someone else's turn.
The only change between allowing or disallowing Evasion from a CA is whether you can do those theoretical six resolutions within one turn or not - because the total number of attacks within a round does not change at all. And as long as a round contains the same number of rolls and thus takes the same amount of time, I really don't give a **** how long a turn takes.
Further, the whole thing is going to be over pretty quickly: A Counter Attack can only be a single attack, so any parries past the first one only have a hit or miss result - any damage being rolled already means the chain is broken.

Aaand just to clarify: How many of those issues do you think present problems during actual gameplay and how many of them are you just arguing for the sake of the argument?

Cifer said:

I'm afraid i have to agree with Cifer on this one - what exactly is your intention here Mort? You seem unwilling to accept anyone's suggestion that the rules aren't actually all that 'skeevy', to use your own phrase, if you just reference earlier games in the 40k RP line and WHFRP2ndEd, nor are you actually defending the Rules As Written but instead just counter-arguing any constructive posts people make.

So i guess it boils down to what you were seeking when you started this topic. Were you just wanting to point out broken and unbalanced the RAW are so that everyone could min-max them? Were you seeking clarification on the wording of the RAW to try and avoid min-maxing them? Or just alerting everyone that the RAW are different from previous editions, don't seem to work as well and thus to wait for an errata to come out?

I find this thread facinating in a weird sort of way.

As far as I can tell, Mort is pointing out:

1. The description of Delay is poorly written and should be more clear.

2. Delay is written in such a way it can be interpreted that, by the way it interacts with dodge as a reaction, you can get multiple attacks that cannot be dodged. The writing, in fact leans heavily towards that interpretation.

From people's posts I've gathered:

1. Most people agree that it should be re-written and are hoping for a clarification from the developers

2. Many disagree with the interpretation Mort has offered while others hesitate to say one way or the other.

2a. Since there is no errata or clarification forthcoming, people have offered their own suggestions on how to deal with it.

I see #1 as something you just can't do anything about - our hands are tied.

I see #2 as a useful excersise because it gives everyone different interpretations of the rule and the pitfalls of each interpretation.

I think people are getting a bit frustrated, Mort, because you're using the rules, that you yourself have pointed out as being unclear, to poke holes in other people's otherwise constructive interpretations.

I like the debate but I think it would be more useful to focus on ways to make Delay work in a balanced way - at least until an errata or clarification comes out. Maybe start a thread in the Houserules section? JackalStrain sent the question to FFG and I notice he hasn't posted since. He's probably just waiting on an answer.

That's right. I'm still waiting on an official answer. I know how I will rule delay in my games until then, but I don't see the point in continuing this discussion further. I believe that everything that needs to be said has been said.

Kasatka said:

In short, I think the rules present an issue that isn't merely open to exploit, but prone to causing confusion even during "honest" play, if you will. I've merely argued that this is the case, and used the indeed unworking rules in an attempt to prove that they are indeed broken. And that by their own internal logic there doesn't really exist a fix.

That said, I think my quick and dirty houserule would be that delay "creates" a half action that can be interjected anywhere during the remaining round. If it's declared during an action "in progress" it occurs after that action. If it's full round action with two clearly separate parts (Like charge, which has a move and an attack) it occurs after the resolution of the first part. If there's no clear distinction (disarm) it occurs after the entire action has been resolved.

This half action is treated as occurring during the previous turn for all intents and purposes but actual turn order. Thus, attacks can be both evaded and counter attacked, and subtype limits still apply.

And I can agree that, unless someone else feels like claiming Delay doesn't need official errata because it's broken, this thread has more or less run it's course.

@Cifer I think almost all problems I present are actual problems. The extent varies, but they're all instances where the rules fail to properly convey their intentions, leave themselves open to multiple interpretations or are just horrifically easy to exploit in ways that could easily be solved with better language. While I can agree that you can't exploitation proof a product, I still think an effort should be made to be as clear as possible in an effort to minimize both the exploitation potential and genuine confusion. What's clearly exploitation to one might very well just be possible intent for another, after all. Feature or bug is not always clear.

I agree with Mort here. There is nothing wrong with looking at the house rules put forward in the thread and trying to find weaknesses in them. I mean, we basically did that with the base rules here so why should house rules be any different?

As to the extended duration of back and forth counter attacking, I personally think that is completely fine, both rules and thematically. Rules wise, you can only have a certain number of reactions in a round, regardless of where you use them. If you use your parry for the round in the counter attack war, then someone else can simply walk up and hit you later.

Thematically it works for me in that 2 high level duelists should have a duel around lightning quick parries and ripostes. If you feel it getting insane in your group, merely have a cumulative effect on the WS counter attack tests.

Also thematically, I have a major problem with how an actual duel would go with 2 characters with high Ws and CA. The first person attacks, is parried and hit from the counter attack. On the opponents turn, they attack, are parried and hit. Basically a duel would look ridiculous. You'd have the first person feint, if they failed their feint, they'd simply do something else or end their turn (although I could see that working thematically, 2 master duelists vying for a small advantage, neither striking until they know they have it)

As to the why you can react when someone shoves a plasma grenade in your face as opposed to your plasma weapon over heating, is that you SEE them doing it. If you didn't, you'd be unaware and unable to dodge, whereas with your plasma weapon, it happens instantly on your pulling the trigger. With perils, you'd simply be unaware of things going wrong until they actually hit you, being that you were intending to use the warp energy that is now damaging you.

Again, not particularly important for BC, but try ruling that counterattacks can be parried in Deathwatch, and have fun when two guys use Counterattack in concert with Stalwart Defense. I've seen that in action, with one attack devolving into 20 minutes, real time, of back and forth slugging while the rest of the players stood and watched.

Having witnessed that, nobody will ever convince me that Reactions being only available on one's Turn (a rule we haven't noticed back then) is a matter of bad wording and not a vital part of the ruleset.

My experiences with Temple Assassins in Ascension only strengthen my convictions on this matter, by the way.

Simply rule that each counter attack is at a cumulative -20 penalty, each attack must be faster to be instantaneous.

Besides, FFG have been slowly improving their systems, and with BC, it makes 0 sense to not be able to evade in your own turn.

Also, Deathwatch was full of random stuff, like the 45 armour points psyker with no pen allowed, or the fact that you can get a marine to throw 2 tons or something over a kilometre.

Please don't bring counter attack into this. The rules on couner attac are pretty clear. You can't use reactions on your own turn, so you can't dodge or parry someones counter attacks. Anything else is definitely a houserule.

I know its a houserule, I did say that before

I'm just saying that it makes no goddamn sense for you to not be able to evade on your own turn.

Yes it does. It makes perfect sense.

Remember that turns are just an abstract way introducing some order to how combat works in the game. Even though a round consists of each player taking their turn in order, it doesn't mean that those involved stand idle while they are waiting for their turn to act. Your turn is simply the fractions of a few seconds that you are actively doing something, opposed to reacting to what's happening around you.

Everyone acts at the same time, but that wouild be a nightmare to simulate in game terms, so a round has to be divides into turns.

My point exactly, turns are merely an abstract, everything is effectively happening at about the same time.

You don't have discrete "I'm acting now" and "I'm reacting now" sections, it all happens at the same time. In reality you both react and act at the same time, each informing the other. Thus there is absolutely no sense actively separating the two in the rules, you can only do so much in your own turn, hence the single reaction per round.

Because everything is occurring at the same time, the idea that you are unable to react because you're acting is ludicrous.

Think about it from a practical standpoint for a second also. There aren't many ways you can get attacked on your own round (conter attack and maybe overwatch is the only occasions that comes to mind). Counter attack isn't supposed to represent two fighters fencing against each other, trading blows and parrying repeatedly. You have the various attack maneuvers and feint for that.

Counter attack is meant to represent how an experienced fighter takes advantage og an enemy making a mistake or letting his guard down by letting his attack be parried, thus being able to make an attack that the enemy can't react to, but it's difficult to pull it off (hence the -20 to the attack roll).

Think about it. Do you really think you should be allowed to parry an attack that specifically takes advantage of the fact that your own attack was foiled? The enemy is taking advantage of your mistake. suck it up, and pray to the gods that he misses on his riposte.

In a word, yes. It's a little less likely with heavier weapons, but with a rapier or similar, its very possible.

I think the -20 tot he attack roll for the counter attack is a much more elegant method of resolving it than allowing counter attack to be parried. It's faster and easier during gameplay.

@Jackal_Strain

Delayed actions and Overwatch are exactly what makes this so problematic. You don't care for someone evading your attacks? Just overwatch him or delay your turn into his. It's better than Feint (which can fail) and available in ranged combat as well.

The way I read Delay is that rather than ending your turn completely it postpones your turn until you choose to use your delayed action, at which point you continue your turn. this would mean that you are still subject to the only one action af any type rule as you have not yet started a New turn.

as for a delayed action being unavoidable I also intepret delay as that whilst you may be interrupting another characters turn, as you are taking the remainder of your turn it is therefore no longer their turn and so would have any reaction available once your delayed action has been completed it returns to being the opponents turn.

Cifer said:

That's why it's so important that Delaying eats up a half action just for setting it up. Overwatch is fine already because it greatly limits your tactical flexibility.

Being able to ignore enemy Evasion is pretty important tactically for fighting things like Genestealers. I'd be extremely reluctant to dismiss the option entirely.

Thats just it though, when you interrupt / take your delayed action it is no longer the enemy's turn (for the duration of your action) , therefore any reactions can be used as normal.