In Feint under DoW it says that the MoS is subtracted from the opposed action’s successes.
So this means that if I roll a 5s for a Feint and the opposed roll gets 3s (MoS 2), the opposed roll is reduced to 1s and not beaten?
Also, the only two opposed actions are Feint and Obfuscate. I find it difficult to apply the above to either action.
Feint: If you have 2 Feints what is the impact of either winning?
Obfuscate: Does the Obfuscate succeed if it gets more successes than the Feint or if successes are left. In the above example, the first intepretation would see the Feint beat the Obfuscate, the second would see the Obfuscate get the +1 bonus as it was only reduced to 1s?.
i am looking at Burning Empires right now, and some of the DoW rules are slightly different from BW Revised. So hopefully you’re asking about the former.
pg. 449 - there is only one winner in a versus test.
In this case, the Feint beats the Obfuscate and blocks it. The obstacle for the Obfuscate is 5, not 3.
Feint vs. Feint means that whoever wins lowers his opponents body of argument by the Margin of Success.
(let’s see if I successfully Kublai-ed my way through this one)
So, my next question is there any circumstance where you actually use MoS to subtract from the opponent’s action? For Obfuscate and Feint, you are effectively subtracting successes.
In BE, Feint does not subtract from disposition.
I am wondering if the line “margin of success subtracts from the successes of the opponent’s action” should read “margin of success subtracts from the successes of the opponent’s body of argument.”
Woot! That certainly makes Feint much better than I originally read it.
The passage reads:
"Using a Feint, the speaker leads his opponent into a trap. He lures him into thinking he is discussing one point, until his hidden barb is revealed. Against opposed actions, test the Feinting character’s skill. Margin of success is subtracted from the opponent’s successes for his action.
A Feint is a risky maneuver, but when it works it’s beautiful. Against independent actions, the Feinting player may not test his skill at all; he’s defenseless. There is one exception: Feints automatically counter Rebuttals—no defense is allowed, nor is the riposte, for the player who scripted the Rebuttal. No roll is necessary. This is an automatic effect of the Feint. The Feinting character is then allowed to make a free Point against the defender. Test the appropriate skill."
I have bolded the passage.
I just looked at the DoW sheet and that says BoA, so that is correct.
As written, that one sentence “Margin of success is subtracted from the opponent’s successes for his action.” doesn’t really mean much. Rebuttal auto-loses and subtracting successes doesn’t make him somehow lose more. Obfuscate is rolled, but again there aren’t degrees of loss so again, nothing. And Feint on feint does nothing…
However, if that sentence ends with BoA instead of action…
Wow, that’s definately errata worthy as that’s a big difference from how it reads (as well as really different from BW DoW, if you’re used to that).
Nicely summarised my feelings. I had written off Feint unless used against Rebuttal but the clarification makes it as dangerous as it states in the paragraph. Awesome!
The sentence should read “Margin of success is subtracted from the opponent’s body of argument.” Note well that, as per the table on the next page, this only effects Feint and Obfuscate actions.
Damn it! How the hell does something like this get in there? None of you have any idea how many times we went over this stuff.
Given how errata free this book is, I can literal feel the pages soaked in the sweat of the proofreaders :)[/quote]
Soon it will be soaked in our blood.
FYI, Feint is much different in BW Revised. It become one of our favorite actions Burning Empires due to its new application. Feint vs. Feint tends to be awesome when roleplayed out.
If you ever need to feel better about the BE errata look at White Wolf’s Mage Errata. It is up to 30 pages! When Mage came out I stopped playing WW and started to play BW. But I check back from time to time to see the Errata grow.
Abzu, do you want us to post those little mistakes we do find here on the forum? I am mightily impressed with the sheer lack of such mistakes (but I have seen one or two), an impressive feat in a book over 650 pages long.
It does add to the enjoyment of reading it, as I get severely pissed off with the plethora of mistakes which can be found in other RPGs.
John
Feint is useless against everything but Rebuttal and Obfuscate.
Against Rebuttal, Feint automatically succeeds, and makes a free Point.
Against Obfuscate, Feint is tested twice and successes are added together.
If the Feint succeeds, subtract the Margin of Success from the Obfuscator’s Body of Argument. Additionally, the Feinter gets +1D to his next action.
Feint is useless against everything but Rebuttal, Feint and Obfuscate.
Against Rebuttal, Feint automatically succeeds, and makes a free Point.
Against Obfuscate and Feint, Feint is tested once as a vs action i.e. a contested roll, and if the Feint is successful the Margin of Success is subtracted from the Feinter’s or Obfuscator’s Body of Argument. Additionally, the Feinter gets +1D to his next action.
