# Mildly confused about weapon length

It seems, from pp. 118-119, that weapons of differing lengths are intended to introduce asymmetries in the conflict resolution matrix. Still, the wording has me scratching my head:

“Against short-ranged weapons, your attack action counts as a versus action (rather than independent) against Attack, and is independent against Maneuver.”

It is mainly the “counts as” that bothers me. The phrasing inclines me towards reading it as your attack roll hindering your opponent, who then has to subtract your successes from his roll, while your own attack roll remains independent. But I’m far from being entirely sure, hence this post.

So, let’s assume Alice has an Axe and Bob has a Bow. First action, Alice and Bob both Attack. Which is the correct resolution?
[ol]
[li]Alice - Versus (Normal vs. Missile); Bob - Independent (Attack vs. Attack).
[/li]If Alice rolls 3 successes and Bob rolls 2, Alice is left with a 1 point margin, but Bob keeps both successes.

[li]Alice - Independent (Attack vs. Attack); Bob - Versus (Missile vs. Normal)
[/li]If Alice rolls 3 successes and Bob rolls 2, Alice keeps all three successes and Bob fails.
[/ol]

If Alice Attacks while Bob Maneuvers, I am rather more confident that Alice remains a Versus roll (subtracting Bob’s Maneuver successes) while Bob’s become Independent.

In the first case, the longer weapon does have a rather massive advantage, which may be interpreted as simply being out of range of the opponent’s shorter weapon. The second case is less clear cut, the longer weapon has a harder time hitting an opponent (getting inside its range, or being a moving target vs. missile), but keeps the Maneuver advantage (e.g. keep the opponent away). That trade-off has to be more satisfactory from a design standpoint.

For what it’s worth, the “playing cards” on the wiki favors the second interpretation (Bob’s attack is Versus), but I haven’t seen it discussed on the forum.

So, which would it be? What is the intent? Did I fail English 101 somewhere?

Neither. The chart on p. 109 is amended for the instances mentioned.

As far as I know, a test is always versus for both sides or neither. So, if Bob and Alice both attack, they both roll versus. Only one (or neither) of them will do damage.

Likewise, if Alice picks maneuver, but Bob attacks with the bow, they both roll independently. Bob is going to hurt Alice no matter what, assuming he rolls any successes, and Alice just has to beat the fixed ob.

The bow’s Missile trait affects the bow’s attack against an opponent’s maneuver. So in your example where Alice attacks and Bob maneuvers, they’d bith roll versus as normal. However, the Range trait of the bow gives Bob an extra two dice to roll.

Home this helps, and is accurate.

I beg your pardon? I do understand it must be amended. The questions of “how?” and “what are those instances?” still stand.

Conceptually, I have no problem with having one half of the action resolution be treated as independent, ignoring the opponent’s roll, while the other half is treated as versus, using the very same rolls. It just isn’t as drastic as what happens when you resolve a Feint.

If that is wrong, please do say so.

I find that rather unsatisfying, considering it is stated it is against shorter weapons that the resolution is modified. That’s pretty much why I had opened my post by talking about asymmetry and had ruled out, albeit maybe wrongly, the “both roll Versus” case. I just don’t know…

Let’s consider instead a Missile Attack vs. a Thrown Attack. The Missile has longer range, so the Thrown trait shouldn’t come into play, while the Missile trait would. If it was to be symmetrical, you could just talk about “weapons of differing lengths” and be done with it (granted, the Attack vs Maneuver case, and the Spear trait would affect that).

Likewise, if Alice picks maneuver, but Bob attacks with the bow, they both roll independently. Bob is going to hurt Alice no matter what, assuming he rolls any successes, and Alice just has to beat the fixed ob.

The bow’s Missile trait affects the bow’s attack against an opponent’s maneuver. So in your example where Alice attacks and Bob maneuvers, they’d bith roll versus as normal.

Oops. :eek: I swear I really originally intended to address the Alice Maneuvers vs. Bob Attack case, but somehow wound out interverting them… Sorry for that. I shouldn’t be posting at 1AM.

However, for the same reasons as above, I am not convinced that both would have to roll independently. Only Bob would. Although my nice, contrived rationale about how that works out visually is completely destroyed.

Grumble, mumble, mumble.

Attack played against Attack is resolved using the versus test mechanics rather than the listed independent test.

-L

That is wrong. If the Bob attacks with his bow, then use versus to resolve things if Alice also attacks. If Alice maneuvers they test independently.

If bob maneuvers and Alice attacks, there’s no change. It’s versus, but Bob gets a +2D.

That’s pretty much why I had opened my post by talking about asymmetry and had ruled out, albeit maybe wrongly, the “both roll Versus” case. I just don’t know…
Both roll versus.

Let’s consider instead a Missile Attack vs. a Thrown Attack. The Missile has longer range, so the Thrown trait shouldn’t come into play, while the Missile trait would. If it was to be symmetrical, you could just talk about “weapons of differing lengths” and be done with it (granted, the Attack vs Maneuver case, and the Spear trait would affect that).
Not sure I follow you. Page 118 is pretty clear that missile v. thrown means that if the bow attacks, then use versus for attack-attack and independent for attack-maneuver. Those changes only come into effect if the bowman attacks. If the bowman maneuvers they get +2D regardless of the throwing characters action. However, the test is not altered from what is shown on page 109.

However, for the same reasons as above, I am not convinced that both would have to roll independently.
If the archer attacks and the normal weapon maneuvers. They are both independent tests.

Fair enough. It is clear I was mistaken. Thanks to all of you.