Fwurg

[Elmer]

As my jedi uses tonfa handles, I like to propose a tonfa handles based style. At this moment the style is meant as a tier 2 style for the more special lightsabers. I would like to have your inputs on it. One of the things what has to be determined is what the prerequisite combat style should be, I was thinking of Makashi.

On a side note, at this moment the style is automatically added at the list of combat styles. I have yet to figure out how to prevent this :(, what reminded me that the wiki guide need to tell people how to use the Work in Progress bar.

[Brend]

You do that by putting a ~~NODATA~~ below the WIP data and mucking with the manoeuvre data (as can be seen on the page)

I'll have an in-depth look later on, but first impressions:

• The name is not based on anything Star Wars-y
• The usage limitation is ambiguous: 'stick like handles' is just not clear (and 'e.g.' means exempli gratia, which means 'for example')
• The given examples do not seem logical at all: saber staffs, saber pikes and tonfa sabers have very little in common!
• The manoeuvres are all tonfa manoeuvres. Where are the manoeuvres for the other handles you claim to support?
• You claim that it is a tier 2 style, but the prerequisites only list 'Jedi'. This makes it a tier 1 style, and a horribly overpowered one at that -> Makashi doesn't seem to be a good fit, as that style is a one-handed fencing style
• What does 'This is only one time applicable.' mean? "You can do this once per combat", or "You can do this once per opponent"?

[Mercury]

Brend raises some good points, here's my insights:

• This style is obviously aimed at Tonfa's. Lets make it Tonfa handle only.
• This style should be a Tier-1 style: like Juyo which is a saber staff style, it makes sense to me that the Tonfa style is also tier 1.
• I do not oppose a second tier style then being developed on top of this.
• This does mean the styles bonuses need to be seriously rebalanced for tier 1.
• The Turning Blades manoeuvre is overpowered on several levels - too high base ranks, too high additional bonus, too low a requirement to use, no cost to use, boosts attack in the same round it is used instead of the next. My suggestion is to redesign it from scratch.
• Angels and Angles are not the same thing. Pick one.
• Attack of a thousand Angels (or Angles) is broken and overpowered. Getting an opponent off balance for free without any cost whatsoever makes zero sense to me as well. I think there should be a requirement to beat an opponent on a specific ring and it should only give a boost to one ring, not two.
• The description of Snake Bite says you defend but in reality you attack - this should be adjusted.
• Conceptually Snake Bite it is not overpowered, but the base bonus of one on each ring of offence is - that needs to be reduced to one only, I would reckon.
• Additionally for clarity you should explicitly claim you use the power in your post when you take the DCA, with the offensive advantage action going active next round.
• I think Elmer means that you can only have one offensive advantage action from this manoeuvre active at a time. This seems reasonable but should be clarified.
• This definitely needs a different name.

That's my views. I'd be curious to see an adjusted version cause I like this style a lot conceptually.

[Elmer]

I can write a whole report of why I made the choices I did, but well, lets not do that. :)

I made some adjustments according to your input:

The problem of the name is that I have no idea what the philosophy is behind the other names. I can slap some letters together and make a random name like Sashii-tra, or Mahoto, but those names have no origin. If you know how the other styles got their names and can make a good name, I can use the help with that. If somebody has some great name ideas for the special manoeuvres, that would be nice as well, as I only like the name 'Turning blades'.

The reason I thought this was better as a tier II style is because tonfa handles are quite unusual and harder to use. The practitioner must know what he is doing to prevent cutting of his own arms. I think that Juyo is more a tier II style as well actually. I have rebalanced the dots to a tier I style for now to see how that turns out.

I fail to see how Turning blades is that overpowered. When we lower the bonus a little it does not really differ from saber swarm from Ataru.

I made some adjustments to Attack from thousand angles. (Though something with angels would be funny as well :P). I removed a bonus dot, and created some additional restrictions. Now it should be as balanced as Sun Djem.

I meant for Snake Bites that you can have only 1 offensive advantage action that way. Simply because otherwise the player would have way to easy 3 offensive advantage actions. Also, after 1 advantage action, your opponent knows the trick and wont get cornered further this way. I haven't specified yet how to use the DCA, I just realised. Technically you can now take a defensive DCA, win on the inner ring and claim the advantage action. Maybe this should be specified to an 0/0/+2 offensive DCA only. I have changed the bonus rings of the manoeuvre to only cutting an piercing. This manoeuvre is meant as an offensive manoeuvre, not defensive. Because of the typical nature of the handles, you have a lot of attack options, more than with regular handles. The part of 'and kicking while you defend with your saber', was meant as an example. I took a lot of inspiration from this movie.

BTW, If you go look for tonfa handles, its better to look for tuifa than tonfa. Tonfa is the American name and has thus fewer useful hits.

[Mercury]

I fail to see how Turning blades is that overpowered. When we lower the bonus a little it does not really differ from saber swarm from Ataru.

Using Turning Blades, if you successfully block a piercing attack, you get +3 slashing and +1 deflection. In addition you can take an action of your choice which can deliver another +2 on slashing for example. Total bonus is +6.

Using Saber Swarm, if you give up your action, you get a +3 to slashing, with the additional advantage of not having to take a check.

I do not think that the advantage to not have to do a check, and the cost of having to successfully block an enemies piercing attack justifies a total bonus of +6 over +3, especially since Turning Blades can also be used with a multitude of other manoeuvres, advantage actions, and non-combat actions.

[Elmer]

Oke, I see the problem.

I have changed the manoeuvre. Now you cannot take other actions, it grands smaller bonuses, and when facing multiple opponents, you may count the lowest piercing ring. I think it is much more balanced now.

I have made an alternative 'Turning blades' manoeuvre, where you get a bonus on a slashing DCA check, and 1 dot extra defence compared to the first manoeuvre.

[Brend]

I have no time to check this style right now, but I plan to look into it in more detail on 2013-4-4.

EDIT: Me and Elmer are revising the style right now.

[Mercury]

The style still needs a different name. Its just as hard to come up with names for you as it is for me, but since its your creation, I think you should have the naming opportunity.

The new limitation to Tonfa Handle only meets my approval and I think the stats are balanced.

I like the new Turning Blades (the alternative not so much). However, I do think the wording should be rewritten to make it clearer what it intends and what its cost are - it took me two reads to make sure.

The new Attack of a Thousand Angles seems balanced to me. For clarity, I'd add that the defeat on the cutting ring should be against the opponent who brought you off balance, but that's semantics as it is already clearly so intended.

Snake Bite lists "If you get over the deflecting of your opponent with a DCA, you get an offensive advantage action.". It is unclear to me what you intend with this.

<Brendmode>Your proposal requires more proper-Englishification</Brendmode>

All in all your new proposal improves a LOT and I think we're basically there, we just need to fiddle with the semantics a bit to increase clarity. Conceptually I think we're there so this is basically just polishing.

[Brend]

I do not really like the Turning Blades: the "when facing two opponents, their lowest piercing score counts while attack you." basically disables any and all attacks combining ranged weaponry and something else, as most ranged weaponry (such as blasters, snipers etc.) is piercing.

I'd like it to state 'melee only', and even then I think it is a stacking of two different effects (albeit with a low manoeuvre bonus to the style).

[Brend]

Elmer and me request a clarification: "it took me two reads to make sure." We realized there are different interpretations. Can you explain to us what your current reading is, so we are all on the same page?

[Mercury]

I currently read it like so:

• You get an +1 on your slashing this round, but only if you are not defeated on the inner ring (your Deflection is equal or higher than their Piercing attack)
• When facing more than one opponent, only the attack with the lowest attack score in the inner ring counts, not the highest.
• These benefits only work if you do not take another action.

Additional point that needs clarification: I think the second power should only work if both attacks are on the inner ring. If one is for example only in the outer ring, this does not negate the attack on the inner ring, lest you could hire people to shoot at you with grenades and thereby become impossible to defeat.

[Brend]

We were just debating the shooting issue. We came up with allowing counting only melee opponents for the power.

I propose the following wording: "When attacked by multiple opponents, instead of attacking your Deflecting rating with their combined maximum score, they attack with their combined minimum score." it is the same as Deceptive Whirlwind. The idea is that non-scores on an attack are not counted as a score so they are ignored for the minimum (they aren't 0, they are null).

[Mercury]

This works for me!

[Brend]

There is another issue with the Turning Blades as Elmer proposes it, though it is easier to explain in person or through voice-chat... I'll try though:

He claims "You get an +1 on your slashing this round after deflecting a pierce attack."
which you read as "You get an +1 on your slashing this round, but only if you are not defeated on the inner ring (your Deflection is equal or higher than their Piercing attack)"

But both of these are bonusses conditional on the current round, which goes against the parry mechanism!


We are currently looking at either:
"If you successfully deflect a piercing attack, you gain a +1 Slashing in the next round."
or
"If you succesfully deflected a piercing attack in the last round, activating this manoeuvre grants you a +1 Slashing this round."

I think I like the second one, but it would be the first manoeuvre of its kind: the 'hindsight activation' manoeuvres.

[Mercury]

Then we may also need to fix Ataru's Saber Swarm

[Brend]

Elmer and me completed the NEW AND IMPROVED style 'Paraan Talim'.

(Ok, we changed the name and polished some of the manoeuvres :P)

If there are no objections, we will put it on the wiki next weekend (2013-4-13).

[Brend]

We've put this on the wiki.

[Mercury]

The new combat style looks awesome. Yay!