+1 Tapping to Support

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

+1 Tapping to Support

Post by rezwits » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:02 am

Recently as my combat techniques have slowly improved :P :x :oops: I have come acrossed a technique of "infighting" where I do this:

Let say I have 3 guys Untapped, and facing 3 strikes @ 8 prowess.

I assign my strikes to all 3 characters.

I choose to face the 1st strike with 1st character untapped.
Then face the 2nd strike with the 2nd character untapped.
Then face the 3rd strike with the 3rd character tapping,
in addition tho I then tap char #1 and char #2 to give +2 support to this character.

Now I don't like getting particular with English vernacular, but in this case I am trying to make sure my combat technique is legal.

I ran across this quote:
7 • COMBAT (page 56, METW.pdf)
An untapped character that is not the target of a strike may tap to support a character in the same company that is the target of a strike. The target’s prowess is modified by +1 for each supporting character.
Clarification: If a character is assigned a strike from an attack, he may not tap to support a character that is facing a strike from the same attack.
An ally may tap to give a +1 prowess modification in this manner.
So here is my LOGIC:

An untapped character that is not the target of a strike may tap to support a character in the same company that is the target of a strike.
Heretofor I have considered as long as I face the strike and that strike is gone, i.e. the character a no longer the target of a strike he is legal to use for support.
I can't tap 1st and support, I must face the strike -3 NOT TAPPING, then I can tap to support, later.

REASONING:

The quote from the rules could have said:
An untapped character that is not the target of a strike, nor faced a strike, may tap to support a character in the same company that is the target of a strike.

Cause the thing is those characters (#1 & #2) are no longer targets of strikes, the strikes have been faced the strikes are gone...

I am good right?

Thanks for any advice, and clearance!
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by Theo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:33 am

This example indicates that in general strikes once assigned are never considered unassigned for that attack:
MELE Combat wrote:Example: A Cave-drake (two strikes, 10/-) attacks your company which consists of the untapped characters: Gorbag, Snaga, Muzgash, Ufthak, and an Orc Veteran. Cave-drake allows your opponent to assign the strikes, so he assigns them to Gorbag and Muzgash. Gorbag takes his strike without tapping and rolls a 12, easily defeating the attack. Muzgash has He’ll Talk played on him, so you want him to survive.2 You tap Snaga, Ufthak, and the Orc Veteran to aid Muzgash in facing the strike. You would also like to tap Gorbag, but you cannot – he was assigned a strike, so he is still a target of this attack. Muzgash has a prowess of 7 versus this attack: 4 (his own prowess) + 1 (Snaga’s support) + 1 (Ufthak’s support) +1 (Orc Veteran’s support).
That is, resolution does not imply unassigning.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:07 am

Creative thinking rezwits, but that’s not allowed.

If assigned a strike from the same attack, the character can’t tap to support. It doesn’t matter which order the strikes are faced in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by rezwits » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:34 am

k, but this is what is making me crazy, you guys like to KARATE CHOP the ENGLISH language, and I am like ok I am going to do the same thing.

This direct quote:
An untapped character that is not the target of a strike
So I was like OK let's CHOP UP the English, language.

I cannot find anywhere this is EXPLICITLY mentioned in ANY of the numerous RULES DOCS I have over 10 of them.

this EXPLICITLY DOES NOT SAY:
An untapped character that was not the target of a strike
It's like you guys use ENGLISH as the crux of almost every argument, and then I viola 100% BLACK/WHITE issue.

IS versus WAS.

It's LIKE NOPE!

Where is the documentation? I CAN'T FIND ANY!!

It's like I present actual documentation, and I get opinions that disregard everything?

I CAME HERE because I LOOKED UP in ALL the DOCUMENTATION I HAVE, using finds/searches before I came here and posted, (like I normally do).

I'll rephrase my question:

Does anyone have any documention, that is a possible clarification for this quote in the rulebook?
An untapped character that is not the target of a strike may tap to support a character in the same company that is the target of a strike
That essentially discusses that is assigned is the same as was assigned??

Thank you.
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by rezwits » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:09 am

here's all I got
URD 4.2 (page 45)
COMBAT AS THE RESULT OF CREATURES
...
3. If ALL strikes of the creature’s attacks that were assigned are defeated,
and at least one strike was assigned, the creature is defeated.
past tense UGH

What this means is, there is a check system, that waits until ALL of the strikes that WERE assigned are defeated then DONE, not 1 of 3 not 2 of 3 but 3 of 3, ALL 3...

I gotta goto bed...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:13 am

rezwits wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:34 am
this EXPLICITLY DOES NOT SAY:

An untapped character that was not the target of a strike

It's like you guys use ENGLISH as the crux of almost every argument, and then I viola 100% BLACK/WHITE issue.

IS versus WAS.

It's LIKE NOPE!
You forgot about "WILL BE".
If you make a distinction between character that has resolved its strike sequence, and character that just resolves its strike sequence. There are yet a character that has to resolve its strike sequence.

But "resolves its strike sequence" is not equal to "is target of a strike".
If the terms would be synonymous, then any untapped character in company (other than character resolving its strike sequence) could tap in support.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by rezwits » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:21 am

I'll try to understand the WILL BE, I think you are saying during strike assignment?

but before I go I thought this might clear things.

Strike States (er status):
  • Unassigned
    Assigned
    Faced (broken down into)
    • Cancelled
      Defeated
      Ineffectual
      Successful
Let me know if I am missing anything on that list...

The reason for all this "nonsense" which isn't nonsense, is I am trying to implement in CODE versus ENGLISH, the GAME.
I am dealing in absolutes. I don't really have a chance to implement "grey" areas, if you know what I mean.

So when I come into these debates per se, I am not, trying to, you know, argue for arguments sake, or anything and not saying others are, or just have fun, meaning I hope I am not sounding like I am coming in here with the intent to argue or be condescending hehe

I am trying to get these things locked down, I can deal in mainly absloutes with the rules very easily because I picture them as IN action in a computer game...
and usually when I crack these into an and/or situation or a couple of if thens, then that's that...solved.
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:16 am

rezwits wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:21 am
The reason for all this "nonsense" which isn't nonsense, is I am trying to implement in CODE versus ENGLISH, the GAME.
I am dealing in absolutes. I don't really have a chance to implement "grey" areas, if you know what I mean.
Some problems are not fully understood until a program that should solve them will be written.
If I get you correctly.
rezwits wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:21 am
Let me know if I am missing anything on that list...
Failed (broken down into)
Defeated
Not defeated
rezwits wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:21 am
I'll try to understand the WILL BE, I think you are saying during strike assignment?
If a character was assigned (in near past) a strike from an attack, he is still assigned the strike (currently), and he is target of the strike until the attack completes.
Character assigned strike may: have its strike sequence resolved, be resolving its strike sequence, has to resolve its strike sequence (WILL BE resolving its strike sequence).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by Theo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:04 pm

rezwits wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:34 am
Does anyone have any documention, that is a possible clarification for this quote in the rulebook?
An untapped character that is not the target of a strike may tap to support a character in the same company that is the target of a strike
That essentially discusses that is assigned is the same as was assigned??
Does the parenthetical here help at all at indicating the sameness?
MELE CvCC wrote:5) An untapped defending character that is not (and has not been) himself the target of a strike from the same attack may tap to support a defending character. The defending character’s prowess is modified by +1 for each supporting character.
Yes, this is in the CvCC section, but if "is not" and "has not been" were meant to be two different things there would be no reason for the parentheses. They are in there to provide clarification that "is not" is meant to encapsulate "has not been".
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by rezwits » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:25 am

@THEO!!!

Holy ¢rAp!!

Thank You so much!! YES!! That clears this up 100% for me!! Woo Hoo!!

Thanks again!

Laters...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:08 am

As an aside:

Thematically speaking, it doesn’t make sense for a character who has been assigned a strike from an attack to be allowed to tap in support of another character facing a strike from that attack.

This is because said character would be preoccupied with his own strike and thus not able to assist someone else.

In real time, an attack would affect all characters facing strikes simultaneously, but we are not capable of actually doing this from a mechanical gaming perspective, so we must resolve one strike at a time.

Perhaps someone like Legolas, who is a badass with his bow, could both face and assist at the same time, but he would be an exception.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by Theo » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:29 pm

No Waiting To Wonder allows a hobbit to be said badass. :P
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
Double Standards.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by CDavis7M » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:49 pm

I like the original idea though!

Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk


dirhaval
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by dirhaval » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:38 pm

I thought about this too rezwits, but realized I would loose the debate.
Sounds like a dreamcard in the making? I made a Spear item that
sort of allowed such a thing.
It is true a character facing a strike is too busy to aid another strike-facer,
but if Beorn clawed a wimpy orc, then he should be able to
carry his momentum to barrel into an orc hitting Bilbo.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: +1 Tapping to Support

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:19 am

Beorn can become a Skin-changer and just face all of them ;-)
If he feels homesick by the end of the turn, just let him sniff his Pocket Handkerchief.

There is a DC bad-ass who can help out a friend even when he's fighting, and that's Flói. Of course, with that kind of attitude, he didn't live very long...

If Gimli and Legolas are in Great Friendship, they still cannot tap to give +1 support to each other while facing a strike, technically. The support modifies target character's prowess. But they can tap to give +3 to a roll for the other. We do realise that this kind of creative thinking will cause us much trouble in the future :lol:
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”