RUE, Multi Attackers, and Auto Parry

[Kagashi]

Takes place when an opponent is faced by more than one attacker. Characters with hand to hand combat skills can attempt to parry any attacks within their line of sight, from up to three attackers. The defender from multiple attackers can strike at only one target at a time (see Paired Weapons for a rare exception).

I used to interpret the bolded text to mean I can parry up to three times in that time period based on the bolded text which lead me to wonder why the parry/parry option of WP Paired Weapons was even printed. But now, Im thinking this is commonly misinterpreted and this is simply stating the character has the option to parry from any of those three directions, but is still restricted to the one parry/auto parry; the point of the text meaning from the fourth direction (behind), the character is open to direct attack and cannot parry. By understanding somebody can only parry once per melee attack, this makes the parry/parry option of Paired Weapons a clear advantage.

Even in Ninjas and Superspies a character can only parry once per attack, unless the character had Paired Weapons or the Circular Parry ability.

How do you interpret the quoted text? Can you parry up three times or just once per attack?

[Alrik Vas]

I allow three automatic defenses total, in all cases. Parries, auto body flip, auto dodge. Can't do it more than three times per melee attack.

I think the text from Paired Weapons was left in without thought to the parry3 rule.

[Glistam]

My interpretation is that you may use automatic parry up to three times before your next attack and still retain your next attack. If the attack comes from behind you you can only try to parry if you somehow know it's coming. With paired weapons, you have fewer automatic parries specifically as a drawback to the awesome advantages that paired weapons gives you. It's a mechanical limiter, but I envision it as a character splitting their focus between both weapons and therefore not being as focused as they otherwise would. That has served my games and my purposes just fine.

[Virilitas]

My interpretation is that you can parry attacks from up to 3 foes at a time. If a 4th guy attacks you you're Sol. Note this is for foes not using paired weapons. The way I read it was that having paired weapons allows you to choose to sacrifice your auto parrying in exchange for offense. If the defender is not using paired weapons and you attack with 2 they can only attempt to parry one of them. While you now have no auto parry till your next action.

[Subjugator]

Viriltas has the right of it from a straight reading. If three people are attacking you, you can attempt a free parry against all of their attacks (even if they each have 6 attacks per round, for example), but if four people with only four attacks per round are attacking you, you have to pick three of those attackers and only their attacks may be parried.

WP Paired Weapons does make it a bit confusing and it would require clarification or house rules, but the parrying rules are clear. My house ruling with paired weapons would be that you get a freebie attack against anyone you're parrying if you're using paired weapons, but you only do so at the cost of parrying the attack of another...so it would give you more flexibility in your responses.

/Sub

[Tor]

thinking this is commonly misinterpreted and this is simply stating the character has the option to parry from any of those three directions, but is still restricted to the one parry/auto parry; the point of the text meaning from the fourth direction (behind), the character is open to direct attack and cannot parry.

The problem is: how is this enforced? What's to stop the PC from saying "I turn around and face the guy behind me so I can parry him" or whatev. How often can they rotate? Does it happen within the flow or combat or take an action? How do enemies re-orient to get behind you again? Eventually becomes a board game of Warhammer or that new Robotech strat thing.

Even in Ninjas and Superspies a character can only parry once per attack, unless the character had Paired Weapons or the Circular Parry ability.

I don't recall that being the case, do you have a page number / quote to support this?

As I recall, N&SS had unlimited number of parries and circular parry only allowed you to parry attacks from behind/above which you normally could not.

What you describe more closely involved how roll-with-impact worked. Normally you only got 1 per turn (it was automatic and did not cost anything, unlike most other games which explicitly say it takes an action) but if you had 'automatic roll' you could do an unlimited amount of rolls per turn, like if 2 opponents hit you in the same segment.

I think the 'twin parry' ability of paired WP was always well intended, you think of an action hero movie where a swashbuckler deflects 2 opponents who attack him, but it never went so far as to take into account how the parry system works.

RAW aside though, I think a '1 free parry per turn' limit on the standard parry is a GREAT house rule.

The 'twin parry' could then be interpreted as having the ability to spend a melee attack to get a 2nd parry in addition to your free one. Since doing it requires giving up attacking for that turn.

With paired weapons, you have fewer automatic parries specifically as a drawback to the awesome advantages that paired weapons gives you. It's a mechanical limiter, but I envision it as a character splitting their focus between both weapons and therefore not being as focused as they otherwise would. That has served my games and my purposes just fine.

I also really like this interpretation since paired WP is otherwise far too god-tier.

A third option is to ignore the '2 opponents' stuff in double-parry as irrelevant flavor text and re-orient it as a specific response to a twin-strike attack from someone else using paired WP.

Originally, a basic parry could halt a twin strike but the twin strike has been improved in some later games like Dead Reign where only 1 of the 2 weapons can be halted by a basic parry so only the double-parry from paired WP can halt both.

[Kagashi]

thinking this is commonly misinterpreted and this is simply stating the character has the option to parry from any of those three directions, but is still restricted to the one parry/auto parry; the point of the text meaning from the fourth direction (behind), the character is open to direct attack and cannot parry.

The problem is: how is this enforced? What's to stop the PC from saying "I turn around and face the guy behind me so I can parry him" or whatev. How often can they rotate? Does it happen within the flow or combat or take an action? How do enemies re-orient to get behind you again? Eventually becomes a board game of Warhammer or that new Robotech strat thing.

Id imagine any attack from the position behind the character would never be able to be defended, unless you have Multi Dodge (N&SS) or a specific ability like a Juicer's awareness or a Crazy's Advanced Hearing. I imagine it would burn an attack to readjust to the attacker from behind (and potentially opening ones self to attack from a different person now from behind.

Even in Ninjas and Superspies a character can only parry once per attack, unless the character had Paired Weapons or the Circular Parry ability.

I don't recall that being the case, do you have a page number / quote to support this?

As I recall, N&SS had unlimited number of parries and circular parry only allowed you to parry attacks from behind/above which you normally could not.

What you describe more closely involved how roll-with-impact worked. Normally you only got 1 per turn (it was automatic and did not cost anything, unlike most other games which explicitly say it takes an action) but if you had 'automatic roll' you could do an unlimited amount of rolls per turn, like if 2 opponents hit you in the same segment.

I think the 'twin parry' ability of paired WP was always well intended, you think of an action hero movie where a swashbuckler deflects 2 opponents who attack him, but it never went so far as to take into account how the parry system works.

RAW aside though, I think a '1 free parry per turn' limit on the standard parry is a GREAT house rule.

The 'twin parry' could then be interpreted as having the ability to spend a melee attack to get a 2nd parry in addition to your free one. Since doing it requires giving up attacking for that turn.

Yeah, I was thinking the auto roll ability. I still think the RUE passage for Multi Attackers is describing the directions in which a defender can parry from, not the number of parries per melee round.

[Dog_O_War]

Takes place when an opponent is faced by more than one attacker. Characters with hand to hand combat skills can attempt to parry any attacks within their line of sight, from up to three attackers. The defender from multiple attackers can strike at only one target at a time (see Paired Weapons for a rare exception).

I used to interpret the bolded text to mean I can parry up to three times in that time period based on the bolded text which lead me to wonder why the parry/parry option of WP Paired Weapons was even printed. But now, Im thinking this is commonly misinterpreted and this is simply stating the character has the option to parry from any of those three directions, but is still restricted to the one parry/auto parry; the point of the text meaning from the fourth direction (behind), the character is open to direct attack and cannot parry. By understanding somebody can only parry once per melee attack, this makes the parry/parry option of Paired Weapons a clear advantage.

Even in Ninjas and Superspies a character can only parry once per attack, unless the character had Paired Weapons or the Circular Parry ability.

How do you interpret the quoted text? Can you parry up three times or just once per attack?

I honestly do not know how you got to that interpretation.

This is (by the RAW) what it means; parrying with paired weapons is to offer an advantage with simultaneous attack; normally you cannot parry a simultaneous attack, but with paired weapons you can.

You can also attack two separate opponents with paired weapons, and the dual-parry is for use against dual attacks (of which normally you could only parry one of). It is for all intents and purposes, a rare exception (and a bit of redundant text mentioning that it is rare) that you can attack two targets with one attack when that attack isn't an area-effect.

As for parries - you can parry any number of times per round from three attackers. The fourth attacker has nothing to do with position, as demonstrated by larger fighters who have an increased front (able to fight four people within their line of sight) and Juicers, who are able to react to unseen attackers. Even these kinds of fighters can only parry 3 different attackers.

What this means is that you may have only 4 attacks per round, and you could be fighting 3 opponents who each have 15 attacks per round, and you're still able to parry every attack they make against you. But if a fourth attacker strikes at you, with even just one attack, you cannot parry that attack; even when put into the combination of attacks you just parried (3 opponents with 15 attacks = 45 attacks), you aren't limited to parrying 45 attacks per round, but 3 opponents, meaning that regardless of the combination of attacks against you, if and when that fourth opponent strikes at you, you cannot parry.

Twin strikes (as presented in paired weapons) also require that you parry twice - one does not cut it, despite the attacker only rolling one die to strike - you need paired weapons yourself to "twin parry".

[Kagashi]

Takes place when an opponent is faced by more than one attacker. Characters with hand to hand combat skills can attempt to parry any attacks within their line of sight, from up to three attackers. The defender from multiple attackers can strike at only one target at a time (see Paired Weapons for a rare exception).

I used to interpret the bolded text to mean I can parry up to three times in that time period based on the bolded text which lead me to wonder why the parry/parry option of WP Paired Weapons was even printed. But now, Im thinking this is commonly misinterpreted and this is simply stating the character has the option to parry from any of those three directions, but is still restricted to the one parry/auto parry; the point of the text meaning from the fourth direction (behind), the character is open to direct attack and cannot parry. By understanding somebody can only parry once per melee attack, this makes the parry/parry option of Paired Weapons a clear advantage.

Even in Ninjas and Superspies a character can only parry once per attack, unless the character had Paired Weapons or the Circular Parry ability.

How do you interpret the quoted text? Can you parry up three times or just once per attack?

I honestly do not know how you got to that interpretation.

As I explained in Tor's reply, I was thinking of the Breakfall ability. Also, I had the old FAQs running around in my head. Granted, RUE basically supersedes anything from the RMB era FAQs, but it stated:

13. How many times can a character parry? Can John parry(automatic) an attack from bill and mike and still have his attack to use?

Answer: A character can parry equal to their number of attacks (actions) per melee round. If they have automatic parry then can also still attack.

So a parry, automatic or not, you only get a number equal to your attacks. Having automatic parry simply means you can also attack in Step 5 if you parried in your attack. That means one attack per melee action can be parried...according to the now defunct FAQs.

As for the position thing, we must have house ruled the fourth position had to logically be from behind. I looked in N&SS but found nothing about fighting positions. Perhaps there was an explanation in a Rifter, one of the boards, or a FAQ; none of which are cannon. So really, the question is OBE.

It still looks like Multi Attackers in RUE is talking about directions to parry from, not number of parries or numbers of opponents to parry from to me.

[Dog_O_War]

As I explained in Tor's reply, I was thinking of the Breakfall ability. Also, I had the old FAQs running around in my head. Granted, RUE basically supersedes anything from the RMB era FAQs, but it stated:

13. How many times can a character parry? Can John parry(automatic) an attack from bill and mike and still have his attack to use?

Answer: A character can parry equal to their number of attacks (actions) per melee round. If they have automatic parry then can also still attack.

So a parry, automatic or not, you only get a number equal to your attacks. Having automatic parry simply means you can also attack in Step 5 if you parried in your attack. That means one attack per melee action can be parried...according to the now defunct FAQs.

As for the position thing, we must have house ruled the fourth position had to logically be from behind. I looked in N&SS but found nothing about fighting positions. Perhaps there was an explanation in a Rifter, one of the boards, or a FAQ; none of which are cannon. So really, the question is OBE.

It still looks like Multi Attackers in RUE is talking about directions to parry from, not number of parries or numbers of opponents to parry from to me.

If that portion of FAQ was posted on the boards and not published (regardless of who posted it), it cannot be called canon. That's all I'll say.

[Killer Cyborg]

The old FAQ very often had nothing to do with the actual rules.
This is one of those times.

[Subjugator]

13. How many times can a character parry? Can John parry(automatic) an attack from bill and mike and still have his attack to use?

Answer: A character can parry equal to their number of attacks (actions) per melee round. If they have automatic parry then can also still attack.

So a parry, automatic or not, you only get a number equal to your attacks. Having automatic parry simply means you can also attack in Step 5 if you parried in your attack. That means one attack per melee action can be parried...according to the now defunct FAQs.

As for the position thing, we must have house ruled the fourth position had to logically be from behind. I looked in N&SS but found nothing about fighting positions. Perhaps there was an explanation in a Rifter, one of the boards, or a FAQ; none of which are cannon. So really, the question is OBE.

It still looks like Multi Attackers in RUE is talking about directions to parry from, not number of parries or numbers of opponents to parry from to me.

The FAQs have a nodding relationship with the rules, but they are nowhere near canon. I've not gone over them, but from what I understand, they often directly contradict canonical rules.

/Sub

[Kagashi]

Really? I never knew? I guess by me saying "now defunct" it took three other people to validate that. Keep that post count up guys.

[Tor]

Id imagine any attack from the position behind the character would never be able to be defended, unless you have Multi Dodge (N&SS) or a specific ability like a Juicer's awareness or a Crazy's Advanced Hearing. I imagine it would burn an attack to readjust to the attacker from behind (and potentially opening ones self to attack from a different person now from behind.

Yeah what I meant is turning 90 or 180 so that the person behind you is now in front of or to the side.

It's easier to rotate than to circle so I would think that if you wanted to get behind someone again it should take at least 2 actions unless you had some kind of ability to speed it up (like jumping over their head, rolling between their legs, teleporting, super-speed, etc)

the dual-parry is for use against dual attacks (of which normally you could only parry one of)

The problem is that it explicitly referred to 2 opponents rather than 2 attacks, and we are left to wonder what that means. 2 people attacking you in the same turn? The "you can parry 3" thing was added later, far as I remember. Or 2 people attacking you in the same turn who had tied initiatives?

As for parries - you can parry any number of times per round from three attackers. The fourth attacker has nothing to do with position, as demonstrated by larger fighters who have an increased front (able to fight four people within their line of sight) and Juicers, who are able to react to unseen attackers. Even these kinds of fighters can only parry 3 different attackers.

Twin strikes (as presented in paired weapons) also require that you parry twice - one does not cut it, despite the attacker only rolling one die to strike - you need paired weapons yourself to "twin parry".

It's worth noting this is a new addition to the rules though. Far as I recall you could use a single parry against a paired weapon attack.

Didn't the quadruple/sextuple strikes of the Xiticix in Invasion even allow a single parry against it? I don't think we saw needing paired WP to block twin+ strikes until RUE/DeadReign

[Killer Cyborg]

Really? I never knew? I guess by me saying "now defunct" it took three other people to validate that. Keep that post count up guys.

We're telling you something different from what you said.
"Defunct" means "no longer functioning," which means that it once functioned.
"Now" means "presently."

Together, what these words mean is that the FAQ used to function, but currently does not.
Which is not true.
The FAQ never functioned, and was never a legitimate source of information in its own right. The best it got was in cases where it quoted the rules and books directly, and pointed people in the right direction.
Its accuracy otherwise was about on the same level as a Magic 8-Ball.

Because you expressed a statement that was incorrect, you now have people correcting you, pointing out that the FAQ isn't just "defunct," it was never funct in the first place.
This has nothing to do with post count on our end, and you're "addressing the poster, not the post" when you question people's motives like that.

You were wrong.
People have corrected you.
That's all that's happening.

[Dog_O_War]

the dual-parry is for use against dual attacks (of which normally you could only parry one of)

The problem is that it explicitly referred to 2 opponents rather than 2 attacks, and we are left to wonder what that means. 2 people attacking you in the same turn? The "you can parry 3" thing was added later, far as I remember. Or 2 people attacking you in the same turn who had tied initiatives?

It's redundant text; it's impossible, literally - the game forces you into a first/second initiative order, and as a defender, only you can initiate a simultaneous attack to create a situation where you'd be "at the same time", which would then be against only one opponent. So there's no point in wracking your brain over it.

As for parries - you can parry any number of times per round from three attackers. The fourth attacker has nothing to do with position, as demonstrated by larger fighters who have an increased front (able to fight four people within their line of sight) and Juicers, who are able to react to unseen attackers. Even these kinds of fighters can only parry 3 different attackers.

Twin strikes (as presented in paired weapons) also require that you parry twice - one does not cut it, despite the attacker only rolling one die to strike - you need paired weapons yourself to "twin parry".

It's worth noting this is a new addition to the rules though.

It's worth noting that, as a decade old set of rules (in August), it's not "new" but "current".

[Tor]

Current things are the newest things.

[Razorwing]

From what I understand of the rules, unless one has automatic parry, the act of parrying an attack uses up an attack... just as dodging does.

This is why one could normally only parry a number of attacks equal to their number of attacks, because each parry used an attack.

However, with Automatic Parry, one doesn't use up an attack to parry, thus they can theoretically parry as many attacks as are leveled at them without using up any of their attacks... whether that is one attack or 100. Realistically though, there are only so many people who can get close enough to a person to make such attack (ranged attacks normally can not be parried, only dodged). From what I have seen in the rules, the number maximum number of people that can surround a person is 4 (front, back and to each side)... at least according to Palladium. Now, unless the target has some means of being aware of what the person behind them is doing, that attack is effectively going to be treated as a surprise attack (no parry or dodge possible), but he can still parry each of the other three attackers (who are presumably attacking on their individual initiative order).

Simultaneous attacks happen when two attackers attack on the same initiative order... most likely because one held their attack, waiting for their partner. In this case the target has to decide which attack to parry... unless he is has the paired weapon proficiency... in which he can parry both attacks (provided he has the appropriate weapons). Having three attackers attacking at different initiative orders does NOT count as a simultaneous attack... only two (or more) attackers attacking on the same initiative order do. This is clearly seen in a lot of action sequences where one person is attacked by a group where first one attacker throws a punch, then another, and another... before the target gets a shot in... they are clearly not attacking simultaneously. It is only when two people are attacking at the exact same moment (the same initiative order) that a simultaneous attack occurs.

The same thing applies to Automatic Dodge... using it doesn't take up an action, but it is also usually less effective than a normal dodge (as both have separate bonuses, unlike Parry). Additionally, one also usually requires room to dodge... which means that it usually isn't possible to use a dodge to avoid an attack if one is surrounded (though attacking such a target isn't easy as you may hit those surrounding him... presumably your allies).

[Tor]

The 'we had the same init and chose not to break the tie, or I sacrificed my higher init to wait for me bro' explanation works for me.

Short of that the only simultaneous attack I can think of is using the toy control power from PU1 to attack with a fleet of aircraft in a single volley.

[Dog_O_War]

Current things are the newest things.

No, not even close, and on multiple levels.

[Tor]

Could you give an example of something newer than what is current?

[Dog_O_War]

Could you give an example of something newer than what is current?

Yes; your oft-quoted, yet entirely not relevant other Palladium booklines. My first edition printing of R:UE still holds more relevance than the current reprint BTS, HUII, etc. as it pertains to Rifts.

Then there's the real-life examples; computers in Rifts do not even compare to computers a decade ago, and yet they're considered "cutting edge", when the surrounding technology is definitely beyond what we're currently capable of. That's an example of new technology not being "current" technology.

[Tor]

You are muddying this with different time periods. If something is 'new' in a specific time period then it is 'current' in that time period.

I'm not sure what you mean about RUE vs BTS/HU2. Those books are current/new for their respective lines.

[Alrik Vas]

how about this, then; the m4 is the current rifle used by most of the US military, but it is by no means new.

[Tor]

I think maybe the analogy is too deviated to be useful, there is a linear progression of singular rules but there are multiple guns.