I wrote this style, so I feel a measure of concern for its' success. I am hoping the manuever wont have too high a purchase value because it is such a core component of the style. Scott, I suggest a purchase cost of 1 or 2 points, if that pleases your sense of balance.

This style was based off the movies, "Bride with White Hair" and "Swordsman II" which are both superlative fantasy martial arts films. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend them. In fact, if you're here in Austin, I'll loan them to you. Actually, Now that I think about it, "Wind Stike" might be from the anime "Ninja Scroll", but I'm not sure.

Speaking of styles inspired by fantast martial arts films, Do check out the style "Shard Storm" for a move I was inspired to create from a Jet Li film that has a lady who does a manuever that throws a couple of hundred needles at a target. I've seen vatiations where a godlike martial artist will actually flick a needle at a person with their fingertips and hit an accupuncture point that paralyzes a limb or reverses the chi flow causing spasms and stuff like that. I totally need to add a manuever on to Shard storm that does that!

Hmnn... Good catch mouseodoom,...and that may not be the only one this issue applies to,..I need to look and see.

Ghorüm, I agree that a 1 or 2 cost feels fair and balanced,...but if this applies to more than just this one, we either need to figure out how to create a general cost for all "?" adjustment maneuvers, or we need to add an additional "-1" adjustment to this maneuver (and others like it), plus whatever actual negative applies to the strike chosen. This would make the manever for the style cost 1, and make whatever maneuver chosen to perform be a little more difficult than normal as the price for letting it happen before initiative.

What are you guys' opinions concerning this, either way?

Personally,..I vote for the latter, merely because I don't have to add an extra caveate to the rules for purchasing your Martial Styles.

Scottie

Well,..after having looked through all the other Martial Styles,.. Demon Storm is the only one that has a "?" as an adjustment to a maneuver. As a result,..I think that I WILL go with my second choice, as mentioned in my reply above, and merely cause it to have an adjustment of -1, in addition to whatever adjustment applies to the chosen maneuver. This means that it will COST 1 to purchase, and will add an additional -1 to whatever the modifier is of the maneuver chosen (if any).

Here's how in will now read:

Wind Strike -1 *(+/-?) 2 Damage = (according to maneuver chosen) + Weapon, if initiative lost, practitioner chooses any (1 cost Action) maneuver to attempt before opponent can act. Sword use only. *It should be noted that the Adjustment modifier is -1 IN ADDITION TO the modifier of the chosen maneuver performed. This additional variable modifier does not affect the cost of this maneuver (1 point) when buying the Martial Style. Contested.
Description: Practitioner moves like the wind in order to attempt a single chosen maneuver before their opponent can act.

How do you guys feel about this choice? Any comments?

Scottie

Wording, wording... I had to read over it 3 times before I really understood what I was reading (slower & slower, each iteration)

How bout;

Wind Strike -1, plus combat manuver adj.(*) Cost:2 Damage = (according to maneuver chosen) + Weapon, if initiative lost, practitioner chooses any (1 cost Action) maneuver to attempt before opponent can act. Sword use only. Contested.
*The Adjustment modifier is -1 IN ADDITION TO the modifier of the chosen maneuver performed. This additional variable modifier does not affect the cost of this maneuver (1 point) when buying the Martial Style.

Ok,, after moving stuff around a bit, I don't understand what the 2 in the first line is. I thought it was the cost of the manuver, but according to the last line, the manuver only cost 1 point.

so maybe I'm not the person to offer a suggestion here beyond "it's hard to understand."

ZClip, the reason why you might be confused by the way it's written (the 2 for instance) is that you are looking at it out of context with the actual (clearer) format as it's displayed in the books. I was assuming (perhaps a bad assumption) that you'd be looking at it while comparing the way it currently is in the rulebook. If you did, you would see that there is a descriptor line at the top of the list of multi-maneuvers that denotes the 2 as the number of Actions it takes to perform. This makes it pretty clear,...if you look at the proper formatting,..which sadly can't be appropriately duplicated on the Forum.

However,..that being said,..I DO like the way you chose to re-order the wording of the rules-descriptive, and will adopt that instead of the slightly longer way I chose to do it.

One thing you reccommend which WON'T work, sadly is the "plus combat manuver adj.(*)" you propose to add after the "-1". With the book's formatting,..it just will not fit, nor should it need to, considering the paradigm of each and every other multi-maneuver description. The "-1 *(+/-?)" will need to stay in some way,..or at least something else that is NO LONGER than that. Any other "clearer" suggestion for this? Would this be better?: -1 + ? *

The only other thing I'm concerned with is the lost space when hitting "return" as the additional * information is displayed. I may or may not have room to do this, and it may or may not look good in the formatting used for the actual books. I'll try it and see how it goes....

*Scott goes to try this right now...*

Okay,..

The Adjustment I have changed to: -1 + ? *

And the rewording seems to work O.K.:

Damage = (according to maneuver chosen) + Weapon, if initiative lost, practitioner chooses any (1 cost Action) maneuver to attempt before opponent can act. Sword use only. Contested.
*NOTE: The Adjustment modifier is -1 IN ADDITION TO the modifier of the chosen maneuver performed. This additional variable modifier does not affect the cost of this maneuver (1 point) when buying the Martial Style.

When compared to the version in the book, and taking that formatting into account,...does this seem to work better? Is it clearer?

Scottie

Originally posted by Scott Jones
ZClip, the reason why you might be confused by the way it's written (the 2 for instance) is that you are looking at it out of context with the actual (clearer) format as it's displayed in the books. I was assuming (perhaps a bad assumption) that you'd be looking at it while comparing the way it currently is in the rulebook. If you did, you would see that there is a descriptor line at the top of the list of multi-maneuvers that denotes the 2 as the number of Actions it takes to perform. This makes it pretty clear,...if you look at the proper formatting,..which sadly can't be appropriately duplicated on the Forum.

Hah! yes, well I made the bad assumption firstly that the text was C/V'ed from the manual directly to the forum,,, and the info you detailed makes much of the confusion go away. I am however, pulling up the manual to cross refrence it.

Originally posted by Scott Jones
However,..that being said,..I DO like the way you chose to re-order the wording of the rules-descriptive, and will adopt that instead of the slightly longer way I chose to do it.

Well, I'm glad my input wasn't completely w/o merit & use.

Originally posted by Scott Jones
One thing you reccommend which WON'T work, sadly is the "plus combat manuver adj.(*)" you propose to add after the "-1". With the book's formatting,..it just will not fit, nor should it need to, considering the paradigm of each and every other multi-maneuver description. The "-1 *(+/-?)" will need to stay in some way,..or at least something else that is NO LONGER than that. Any other "clearer" suggestion for this? Would this be better?: -1 + ? *

If it don't work, chunk it. It felt kinda clunky when I wrote it, but definitely made the concept more "solid" for me.

Originally posted by Scott Jones
The Adjustment I have changed to: -1 + ? *

And the rewording seems to work O.K.:

Damage = (according to maneuver chosen) + Weapon, if initiative lost, practitioner chooses any (1 cost Action) maneuver to attempt before opponent can act. Sword use only. Contested.
*NOTE: The Adjustment modifier is -1 IN ADDITION TO the modifier of the chosen maneuver performed. This additional variable modifier does not affect the cost of this maneuver (1 point) when buying the Martial Style.

When compared to the version in the book, and taking that formatting into account,...does this seem to work better? Is it clearer?

Much more so. I would call 2 more questions at this time. First, in refrence to "the chosen manuver preformed" in the 2nd to last sentence of the notational passage;
Am I correct in understanding that the additional manuver can either be a "named manuver" like umm let's say... the Avalanche manuver from the Crystal Warrior Style or a "generic" manuver such as a HEAD VITALS attack (-3) from the Subdue column of the Demon Storm Style?

and second, in refrence to a (I think) format convention that has been kinda hanging me up since the beginning of this thread;
and forgive me if this question seems retarded in any way, shape or form.. Why are you saying "chooses any (1 cost Action) maneuver " INSTEAD of saying "chooses any (1 Action Point) maneuver" ?

lastly 2 things I'd like to mention;
1. my example in the first question was, of course contingent upon Avalanche being a manuver that took only 1 action point, and
2. I JUST noticed that the TOC in the PDF is hyperlinked to it's corrisponding pages, and that pleases me... for what it's worth.

Originally posted by ZClip
I would call 2 more questions at this time. First, in refrence to "the chosen manuver preformed" in the 2nd to last sentence of the notational passage;
Am I correct in understanding that the additional manuver can either be a "named manuver" like umm let's say... the Avalanche manuver from the Crystal Warrior Style or a "generic" manuver such as a HEAD VITALS attack (-3) from the Subdue column of the Demon Storm Style?

Only maneuvers (or multi-maneuvers) that "cost" 1 Action to perform can be chosen. If Avalance takes one Action to perform, then yes,..if takes more than 1 Action to perform, then no, you can't choose it for this Maneuver.

Originally posted by ZClip
and second, in refrence to a (I think) format convention that has been kinda hanging me up since the beginning of this thread;
and forgive me if this question seems retarded in any way, shape or form.. Why are you saying "chooses any (1 cost Action) maneuver " INSTEAD of saying "chooses any (1 Action Point) maneuver" ?

Well,..I'm not sure what an "Action Point" is... but the "(1 cost Action) maneuver" refers to any maneuver or multi-maneuver that costs one of your rolled Actions that round to perform. I've actually never been too fond of the way we put that,..but Joe and I were'nt sure how to say that succinctly. I suppose I could see if "chooses any maneuver requiring 1 Action to perform" might fit and be clearer....

*Scott tries it*

Here's the new wording...

Damage = (according to maneuver chosen) + Weapon, if initiative lost, practitioner chooses any maneuver requiring only 1 Action to perform, which may be attempted before opponent can act. Sword use only. Contested.
*NOTE: The Adjustment modifier is -1 IN ADDITION TO the modifier of the chosen maneuver performed. This additional variable modifier does not affect the cost of this maneuver (1 point) when buying the Martial Style.

Originally posted by ZClip
lastly 2 things I'd like to mention;
1. my example in the first question was, of course contingent upon Avalanche being a manuver that took only 1 action point, and
2. I JUST noticed that the TOC in the PDF is hyperlinked to it's corrisponding pages, and that pleases me... for what it's worth.

1: If you mean "required 1 Action to perform" when you say "took only 1 action point",..then yes.....

2: Excellent! I'm glad you like that.. It made me happy too!

Scottie

Dunno if this helps any, but there are a lot of current games that have things you can do that require a certain number of actions--anywhere from a half-action to a couple of actions, with a few random "free actions" thrown in. I haven't actually gotten as far as reading this section, but I'm guessing some of these maneuvers take more than one action.

With that in mind, it might simplify things for you to say something like "any 1 Action maneuver" instead of "any maneuver requiring only 1 Action to perform". I know in my case, it was the "cost" in "1 cost Action" that was confusing things, whereas "any 1 Action maneuver" makes perfect sense to me.

Although, you might need to make minor adjustments to even that. Someone might read that as "any single action maneuver", rather than as "any maneuver that requires 1 action" ...

In that case, "any 1-Action maneuver" might be better ...

Okay, I'm done rambling now. I really should be working.

I do like the shorter version better, although I want to make sure everyone else thinks its still clear to them...

Hey everybody,..whatcha' think?

Is "any 1-Action maneuver" a clearer and better way of stating "any maneuver requiring only 1 Action to perform"?

Please sound off and let me know...

Scottie

Originally posted by Scott Jones
I do like the shorter version better, although I want to make sure everyone else thinks its still clear to them...

Hey everybody,..whatcha' think?

Is "any 1-Action maneuver" a clearer and better way of stating "any maneuver requiring only 1 Action to perform"?

Please sound off and let me know...

Scottie

I am in favor of "any maneuver requiring only 1 Action to perform" because I am a easily confused and I find that easy to understand without any chance of me misconstuing it.

While I like the shorter succinct version, I do have to agree with Ghorum about the clarity issue. The longer more rambly version leaves much less open to interpretation and confusion.

O.K. then,..you guys were the most directly involved in both creation as well as re-interpretation and layout of the Style,..so let's go with the longer, yet apparently clearer, version of it...

Thanks for the input one and all...

Scottie

Originally posted by Scott Jones

Well,..I'm not sure what an "Action Point" is... but the "(1 cost Action) maneuver" refers to any maneuver or multi-maneuver that costs one of your rolled Actions that round to perform.

Any action point being what you get 2 of for free and have to roll action dice to get (hopefully) more of at the beginning of a combat round. Maybe we were just calling them "actions", I was thinking of them as points because it denotes to me the intrinsic numerical value, as opposed to an actionable effort such as "greap leap" or "stab".

If we are calling them "actions" instead of "action points" might it get confusing (to anyone other than myself) to distinguis when the text speaks of "actions" as how many things you can do in a combat round (or turn, is it??) and when it speaks of "actions" as WHAT you do during a combat round/turn?

on the other hand, if we do (or are, for that matter) calling them "action points", is that adding an unecessary level of abstraction & symantical complexity?

Well,..Actions refers to "things you can do in a Combat round, or out of a round, for that matter". But when you enter a combat round, it is necessary to generate a finite number of Actions you can perform due to the finite amount of time a Round represents (six seconds). Thus,..at the beginning of a round, after Initiative is rolled, you roll for the number of Actions you get to perform that round (adding two, just so that, regardless of your role, you at least get to do SOMETHING). Things requiring more than one Action are multi-maneuvers, as seen in the martial styles, so named because their effects generally represent multiple things happening "all at once" and generally requiring only one die roll to enact (consider them a series of "pre-bundled" actions). But because they represent the nearly simultaneous or back-to-back performance of multiple actions, they "cost" or require the expenditure of multiple Actions to attempt. Most anything else that's NOT a multi-maneuver requires a single Action to perform, and is, in itself, a single-action event.

To put it simply, performing an action in combat requires using one of your rolled Actions. Performing several actions in a row (or a multi-maneuver), requires using several of your rolled Actions.

Normally, when doing stuff during a combat round, there should be little chance of confusion, because the question should always be,.."What are you going to do this round?",..with the response to whatever the answer of that question being "...Then this is how many Actions it will take to do that..."

Scottie

right, and in practice it's readily apparent as to how the term action is applied. I was speaking of how it is used in the book, and the possibility of it becoming confusing within that textural environment.

this could very well be a "non-issue" that my fevered lil' brain is creating just to grief my sanity with.

Well, as far as text is concerned,..the difference is action (with a non-capital), and Action (with a capital).. Generally,..if I'm using "action" in a sentence in the book (or any book),..I'm using the word genericaly. If I'm using "Action" or any other capitalized word in that fashion,..it refers to the specific rules term as defined by all rules refering to an "Action". This is a common paradigm in most gaming rules books.... "skills" as opposed to "Skills", "abilities" as opposed to "Abilities",.."characteristics" as opposed to "Characteristics",..etc....

Scottie

ok that is enough to satisfy my concerns.