Why would Maneuver vs. Maneuver be an Independent test? You would alway try to change your position, In Relation to Your Opponent, not just randomly move around. In an Argument, I wouldn’t change my stance to my opponents position and start agreeing with him (not until my disposition dropped to zero, ) In a fight I wouldn’t just randomly chose a direction and go that way, it would depend on my opponents actions . . .
I have also run into situations where the margin of success was quite a bit higher then three, which left players or the GM with a ridiculous number of options. If it was a Vs, Margin of Success is applied to the three levels of benefit, then that would be much less likely to happen. Or give it a Independent Ob#, Maybe not three, like Defend, but two would probably work well.
This would give real meaning to the phrase, “out-maneuvered”.
When you are on the move, you perforce give up your position and take the risk of being out-maneuvered yourself. It’s a vulnerability, not a strength. Hence the interaction.
Remember also that Maneuver is for setting up future moves: you may take the high ground (Gain Postion, +2D) and strand your opponents in the muck (Impede, -1D to opponents) while getting Disarmed and having to attack through brambles (Impede, -1D). Just because you are moving doesn’t protect you from getting bogged down. Or, conversely, it is possible for both teams to have great positional setup for the next action.
Regardless, come to an agreement at the table on how the two maneuvers interact, keeping in mind that the only mechanical outcome is what advantages you buy with your successes.
I’ve only played a few MG sessions so far and were just wondering regarding weapons/tools:
If I have a weapon (ex. Bow) that changes the action type for me, does it also change the action for the opponent?
ex. Attack vs Maneuver = Versus test
but Attacker’s bow makes it an Independent test = Both roll Independent tests?
So the attacker deals lots of damage, but I guess the opponent will get lots of successes for bonuses on the next action (unless they already lost)
Basically. A changed action relationship can never completely block/remove the opponent from rolling, right?
I guess, what I’m wondering is - an Attack vs Maneuver, using a Bow - if it becomes the equivalent of, for example:
Attack vs Feint, or Feint vs Defend = Independent for first team and NO roll for opposing team
or
Attack vs Attack, or Feint vs Maneuver = Independent for both teams
When you change it for you you also change it for your opponent. You make a versus test. A versus needs a partner so it can’t be independent for your opponent anymore.
If it becomes a versus, then I’m all with you, but…
Take the Attack VS Maneuver attribute of “Thrown” for example:
It makes the Attack an Ob0 Independent roll.
The questions then was - does that make the opponents Maneuver roll an Ob0 as well (like an Attack vs Attack), or a “no roll” (like an Attack vs Feint).
Both “Independent” twins exist, and it’s not clear which one the attribute changes to.
There are not two separate types of independent tests; rather, the Feint action has some unique conditions that only apply to the Feint action. Independent tests are described on page 88.
The independent obstacle for Maneuver is 0, as described on page 108.
If you are Attacking with a knife and your opponent is Maneuvering with a sword, and you choose to throw your knife:
[ul]
[li]Your Attack becomes independent (Ob 0), any successes you roll will come off your opponent’s disposition.[/li][li]Your opponent’s Maneuver becomes independent (Ob 0), any successes they roll become Margin of Success that may be used to buy Maneuver effects (page 109).[/li][/ul]
Yeah, I see what you mean.
I was specifically looking at the Independent VS No roll on page 107, but that IS a very specific trait for Feint, not really applicable to any other action.
) In a fight I wouldn’t just randomly chose a direction and go that way, it would depend on my opponents actions . . .