Now that Interrupt actions are not only for Full Defense, and the use of many Martial Arts maneuvers rely on a clear understanding of them, I ask: have we reached a consensus as to how they work?

1. Can you Interrupt multiple times in one Initiative Pass?
2. If you can, do you forfeit your actions in the next IP or even Combat turn? (This is a stupid idea)
3. Do you have to give up actions 1:1 as mentioned in #2?
4. By my reading of RAW, you can only interrupt if there if you have not acted in the turn yet. This means that if you want to use full defense (and you go first) you have to use up your turn to take it. This means that you cannot act first and still have a huge defense pool. Also you cannot give up your action in the next IP for another action in this one.
5. The problem with reading Interrupt actions as in #4, is that it doesnt work right with the Martial Arts maneuvers. Can someone please clarify this?

Also, here is a list of the maneuvers that require Interrupt actions:

• Disarm (Full Parry -4DP)
• Finishing Move (Immediate attack after successful attack)
• Riposte (Immediate attack after successful block/parry)
• Throw (Full Defense, if successful parry/block, may attempt to Throw opponent)

EDIT - Thanks Rotbart, I should have looked closer.

Pages 138 and 151 talk about full defense in more detail. In a nutshell, you can use it at any point, even if it is not your action phase yet - but that doesn't preclude using it after your action phase. It uses up your next available action, though. You can even sacrifice your first action of the next pass to use it.

By itself, this is not too unbalancing. But if you combine it with maneuvers such as disarm (and one of the martial arts also lets you do damage with this, oh joy), riposte, and throw, then you have characters who are using an interrupt action, then getting another interrupt action - and if they can keep sacrificing from their "next" pass, then they won't really need to lose a pass until after the combat's over.

Personally, I think your #4 is a bit too severe - you should be able to attack first, and still use an interrupt action for full defense like anyone else - but there should be some limit on how many passes you can "borrow" from the next round. One sounds about right to me. But both of us are suggesting house rules. Purely by canon, you can do some things with maneuvers that really mess over the IP system.

Personally, I just rule that things like Riposte cannot be triggered off Full Defense. In my opinion, if the character is devoting his entire attention to defending (using Full Defense), then they cannot use offensive maneuvers at the same time. Works for me.

This is what I've been considering as well for Disarm, Riposte, and Throw. That being you have to be on Full Defense, and then if you succeed in Parrying/Blocking, you can counterattack, disarm, or throw. This makes them also compatible with #4, in that you can only ever act once in one IP, and interrupt only comes into play if you have not acted yet.

The remaining issue now is Finishing Blow. This can only work if you have already acted in the IP, so it completely breaks my earlier system. I know it has been bounced around as to chaining this, which I would also like an official ruling on, if possible.

One issue I have with allowing Actions to be bought ahead is that it either relys on having multiple IPs (I cannot imagine buying ahead to next Combat Round), which rules out Mundane unaugmented Martial Arts masters, which I find disappointing.

I emailed the SR4 dev team about this about a week ago, but haven't heard back, yet. If I get a reply, I'll post it here. I've been wondering the same thing myself.

Until I get a reply, in my opinion, a character should only be allowed 1 interrupt action per action phase.

Just for discussion purposes, if you do allow multiple interrupt actions per action phase, how does work with finishing move? Finishing move is triggered as long as you hit, even if no damage is inflicted. The description doesn't state that it cannot trigger itself. So, if you hit someone then make your extra attack from finishing move, if you hit again, do you get another finishing move attack, and so on until you finally miss your or foe is dead?

Disarm is no interrupt action, though - you can disarm multiple attackers.

The throw description states:

"The Throw maneuver is considered an interrupt action and uses up the character’s next available action."

Edit: Oops, never mind. I see that Rotbart edited his post. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

By RAW, 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. No. 5. #4 is wrong, so it doesn't need clarification.

Where does BBB RAW describe #1, #2, and #3 being right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/proof.gif)

This is what I really need to know. The example given in regard to Interrupt actions in BBB is that of Full Defense taken before a person acted within one IP, thus giving up their action that IP. This supports #4, but does not rule out the first 3. Many people have already commented on the absurdity of 15+ Interrupt Riposte (assuming you are getting swarmed) or chained Finishing moves, with the only balance being that they can do nothing for another 3 minutes after combat has ended.

For #2, the description for Full Defense says, "Going on full defense as an interrupt, however, uses up the character’s next available action" (SR4, 151). That's pretty clear that using Full Defense as an interrupt action forfeits your action on your next IP.

I agree with Tarantula that #4 is incorrect. That would make interrupt actions far less effective, depending on your initiative score for the turn. That would imply that the lower your initiative score, the better off you are in terms of using interrupt actions. That's not right from a logical perspective. Unfortunately, the book doesn't give a very good example of using interrupt actions, so my statement is simply my reading of the rule; I can't point you to any text that objectively agrees with my statement.

I think the intention of full defense is that any time you get attacked and you're not surprised, you can full defense. I can also see why people would get irked by the potential for using manuevers to stack on a bunch of interrupts. But really, how bad is it? Riposte is usually singled out as the worst culprit, but I ask you: how many people have ever attacked a character in melee combat in one round? 3? 4? Sure, you could get 100 ripostes, but that would require 100 people actually fitting into the room and somehow being able to attack you without tripping over each other and making a big dogpile. I submit that the theoretical problems with too many interrupts from maneuvers are not actual problems. The circumstances they require are so specific and narrow as to be irrelevant. You could make the cheesiest cheese riposte master that ever lived, but he would be a huge joke unless the opponents are so retarded that even after he clobbers the 4 guys that attack him at once, they keep coming with melee attacks...

Totally agree with Larme - when this came up the first time round, I pointed out that most of the supposed problems are so unlikely as to never come up in a normal game.

For the record, I allow interrupts to work as written, with the exception of allowing stacking on Finishing Blow - I houserule that you can only perform a single Finishing Blow, mainly because I believe this will be errata'd or FAQ'd shortly by the devs to make it explicit. After all, the name of the manuever is kinda a clue that it is not supposed to be repeated (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) .

So in my games, you can Full Defense interrupt into a Riposte followed by a Finishing Move, but then you are done.

And if you are looking for cheese in the manuever section, try looking at Two Weapon Style and Off Hand Training (or Ambidextrous quality). Who needs interrupt actions when I can have permanent Full Defense up all the time with no action cost, and still attack without any penalty (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) .

I am not really concerned with the brokenness of the current way of doing it. This is merely a logical issue for me. I see nothing wrong with Riposte going to infinity as it was in SR3, since you still loose 1DP for every attack blocked (or at least you should).

As samuelbecket pointed out, Finishing Blow can only be errataed, as otherwise you have a flury of blows situation. Still, no one has yet to show me proof of any of this from the rules.

In support of one action per IP ever (#4), it does not favor in any way those that go last, as the person going before can spend their action to go on full defense instead of attacking. This seems more correct to me (and is much more like previous editions). Then, when the goons run out of IPs you draw the guns and put holes in them. Pretty simple.

It does favor those who go last. Take the following example combat:

Street Sam 1 (S1) and Street Sam 2 (S2) are both fighting Ganger 1 (G1). All are using unarmed combat, all have 1 IP per turn, and all have an Initiative attribute rating of 8--just to keep the example simple.

In the first turn, The Initiative scores are as follows:
S1 - 11
G1 - 10
S2 - 9

Using your interpretation of the rules, S1, who is first, doesn't know if G1 will attack him or if G1 will attack S2. To play it safe, S1 declares that he's taking a full parry action, since if S1 attacks G1 instead, S1 will be unable to declare a full parry later. G1's action phase now comes up. He decides to attack S2, seeing how S1 is standing in a defensive stance. S2 declares a full parry as an interrupt action. G1 makes his attack and misses. End result: S1 wasted his action completely because he wasn't attacked, but had to declare his full parry on his turn instead of declaring it as an action that interrupted the G1's action only if necessary.

The next combat turn begins. Let's now use what most people seem to use as the interpretation of when you can take an interrupt action. By some miracle, the initiative scores are exactly the same in Turn 2. S1 is first, and again he doesn't know who G1 will attack. However, since he knows he can always declare a full parry as an interrupt action any time later in the IP, he decides to attack G1. G1 is feeling buff and doesn't care if he's hit, so G1 does not go on full defense. S1 misses, but at least he got to attack. G1's action phase begins. He decides to attack S1 this time. S1 decides he really doesn't want to get hit, so he declares an interrupt action and does a full parry. Because S1 took a full parry action after he already went in this IP, he loses his next action, which would be in the first (and only) pass of Turn 3. G1's attack misses. S2's action phase now begins, and he attacks G1. G1 again feels that he can take any pain he's dealt, so he does not declare a full defense. S2 hits for 5S DV, and G1 is now regretting his stupidity.

The comparison:

In Turn 1, S1 had to waste an action, effectively being unable to do anything because he had the highest Initiative Score. He didn't know if he was going to be attacked, so he was cautious and took a fully parry action. As it happened, he wasn't attacked, so his full parry action was wasted.

In Turn 2, S1 was able to attack, and when he was later attacked himself, he was still able to defend himself. In exchange, he gave up his ability to go in the next IP, which in this example is also the next turn. However, having the highest Initiative Score didn't hinder him in deciding if he wanted to attack or defend when his action phase came around.

Ranger, Im sorry, but your example as to why #4 is a bad idea is moot. You have completely forgotten that he could postpone his action until after the ganger has gone. Also, you have not very thoroughly looked at the problems with buying actions using actions from a future combat turn. The biggest problem is that having a character stuck in one place for 3-30 seconds after combat ends because he used up that number of combat turns is STUPID.

Also, there is no trade-off. I understand that it is nice to be able to attack and still have more dice to defend, but there is no risk that way. You should be forced to make a trade-off. Attack or Defend.

As per my first post in this thread, I wrote, "Until I get a reply, in my opinion, a character should only be allowed 1 interrupt action per action phase." Therefore, in my interpretation of how the rule is supposed to work, you don't get that "stuck in one place for 3-30 seconds" issue.

Using an interrupt action in the way I believe it's meant to be used by the book, you still do have a trade-off of attack or defense. In the case of my example, when Turn 3 begins, because S1 declared an interrupt action in Turn 2 to full parry, S1 does not have an action that he can take in his action phase of Turn 3. In other words, he gave up his ability to attack in Turn 3 by using full defense in Turn 2. It was a trade-off.

Using delayed actions isn't a reasonable solution, depending on how strictly you enforce that players must declare their actions. If all characters involved will use full defense if they are attacked in an IP, then all smart characters would delay their actions on every IP. However, that leads to a different problem. "If multiple characters delay their actions until the same Action Phase, they act at the same time" (SR4, 134). If you decide that players must declare their actions without knowing what the other players (or you as the GM controlling the NPCs) declare, then you still won't know if you should use full defense or if it's safe for you to attack. That makes it a guessing game.

No matter how many Actions are borrowed, a character would not be 'stuck in place' for any amount of time afterward. Normal movement is always possible within a Combat Turn (barring unusual circumstances like paralysis), and does not cost an actual Action unless the character tries to run or the like.

I gave you a reply. As Fortune said, characters are not "stuck" just unable to run/attack during their spent time.


It is not meant to be that way in the book. Some quotes for you, SR4, 151, "A character may invoke full defense against an attack at any point in a Combat Turn, so long as the character is not surprised. This means a character does not necessarily need to declare a full defense and take a Complex Action in advance--he can instead declare a full defense when attacked, even if it is not yet his Action Phase in the turn. Going on full defense as an interrupt, however, uses up the character's next available action."
I think its quite clear that it is intended for you to be able to use full defense even if you haven't had the chance to act yet.


Using delayed actions is a reasonable solution. Not all characters would use full defense, and having multiple IPs makes using full defense more attractive.

To use your same characters, except S1 now has wired 2 (for a total of 3 IPs).

CT 1:
IP 1:
S1 goes first, and attacks G1.
G1 being smart declares full block, and manages to avoid getting hit by S1.
S2 attacks G1 as well, and misses (even though G1 has a -1 penalty for subsequent attacks).

IP 2:
S1 goes again, and keeps up his relentless attack on G1 (Now at a -2 penalty for defending against multiple attacks). He still misses.

IP 3:
S1 goes again, and attacks G1 again (Now at a -3) and hits for 3S! Now no one else has a 4th AP, so it rolls over to CT 2.

You gave *me* a reply? I think you're mixing me up with the OP, nathanross. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)



I agree. I never said otherwise.



Are we using the terms Initiative Pass (IP) and Action Phase (AP) differently? My understanding is that on any Initiative Pass, each character gets one Action Phase if his Initiative Pass rating is high enough. From your example, it sounds like you're using IP to mean Combat Turn.

I realize that not every character would use full defense in every combat all the time. I used that as an extreme example, because that's when I see an issue with nathanross' interpretation. Clearly, if you choose not to use full defense, then this entire discussion is pointless, regardless of whose interpretation you use.

I don't see how your example proves or disproves either of our interpretations of the rule, though. Here's what I take away from it: S1 attacked first, apparently not caring if G1 might attack him. G1 went on full defense, and since he has only 1 IP, that's all he could do for the entire combat turn. S2 saw that G1 went on full defense, so he knew he didn't have to defend, and attacked G1 instead. S1 then continued to attack in his successive Action Phases in IPs 2 and 3. Again because G1 has no more actions, S1 knew it's safe to keep attacking without worrying if he should go on full defense.

Where does either interpretation of the rule come into question here?

Sorry about the AP/IP/CT confusion, I've edited for clarity.

Looks like I messed up my example. Let me fix it.

CT 1:
IP 1:
S1 goes first, and attacks G1.
G1 is overconfident and doesn't use full defense, but still manages to block the attack.
G1 decides to attack S1, who then interrupts and goes on full defense, easily blocking the attack.
S2 attacks G1 as well, and misses (even though G1 has a -1 penalty for subsequent attacks).

IP 2:
S1 loses this action, since he interrupted with in in IP 1.

IP 3:
S1 goes again, and attacks G1 again (Now at a -2) and hits for 3S! Now no one else has a 4th AP, so it rolls over to CT 2.

Being able to interrupt with full defense allows for someone with an IP advantage over their opponent to spend their initial actions on full defense to avoid being hit, and using their later actions to attack the opponent, either forcing the opponent to go on full defense (spending their future actions) or to take the hit.

Forcing people to wait until they have acted is even more detrimental to low initiative/ip characters than the current method (which at least lets them go fully defensive in an attempt to avoid taking damage).

Okay, no problem. I have no disagreements with your example combat. That's exactly how I believe it works.

The discussion here is that nathanross' interpretation is that if you've already acted in an IP, you cannot use an interrupt action. My interpretation is that you can take an interrupt action even if you already acted in that IP. However, I also believe that the intent is that you cannot borrow actions beyond your single next action.

Here are some more examples to clarify again, using your modified example of S1 having Wired Reflexes 2:

nathanross's interpretation:

CT1, IP1:
S1 attacks G1. G1 decides not to use full defense.
G1 attacks S1. Since S1 already acted in this IP, he cannot use full defense.
S2 attacks G1. Since G1 already acted in this IP, he cannot use full defense.

CT1, IP2:
S1 attacks G1. Since G1 has no action this IP, he cannot use full defense.
G1 has no action.
S2 has no action.

CT1, IP3:
S1 attacks G1. Since G1 has no action this IP, he cannot use full defense.
G1 has no action.
S2 has no action.

My interpretation:

CT1, IP1:
S1 attacks G1. G1 decides not to use full defense.
G1 attacks S1. S1 decides to use full defense, forfeiting his action in IP2. He can use an interrupt action even if he already acted in this IP.
S2 attacks G1. G1 decides not to use full defense. However, he could have used full defense if he wanted, even though he already acted in this IP.

CT1, IP2:
S1 cannot act because he used full defense in IP1 after already acting.
G1 has no action.
S2 has no action.

CT1, IP3:
S1 attacks G1. G1 decides to use full defense, forfeiting his next action. His next action would have been CT2, IP1.
G1 has no action.
S2 has no action.

Edit: Expanded the first example.

Why do you believe that you should not be able to borrow more than your next action?

This is pretty much how I read it too. Its certain the "cleanest" way to handle it.

When the wording of the RAW is vague, comon sense should prevail. At most, I'd say you should be able to borrow IPs through the current turn and into the first IP of the next turn.

(Though the notion of borrowing infinate actions does remind me of a scene in a comedy martial arts movie - maybe a Jackie Chan film? - where a guy defending against mutiple opponents kept performing blocks even after his enemies stopped attacking. Took him about 5-10 seconds before he could stop himself. Obviously, it was played for laughs.)

EDIT: reworded a paragraph that didn't sound right.

RAW Isn't vague. It doesn't provide a limit. I don't think that it is a problem, particularly since only via riposte/finishing move can you borrow more actions (as full defense lasts until your next AP, you'll only ever need to borrow one action via full defense). And riposte/finishing move requires that people continue attacking you, making it not an infinite loop.

My opinion (only) is that not borrowing more than 1 action is the intent of the rule.

It prevents potential whackiness. Yes, I know you said that riposte relies on enemies attacking you in melee, which is true. But, the potential is there. Of course, those would have to be pretty stupid enemies to keep attacking you if you're continually counterattacking each of them. Yes, I also realize that each successive attack gives you a -1 on your dice pool to defend, so you will get hit eventually. Even so, the idea of borrowing multiple actions just seems wrong to me.

By allowing only 1 interrupt action, if you have finishing move, you then have the trade off of making a finishing move to try to defeat your opponent in one IP, or saving that interrupt action to defend yourself if your opponent's friends attack you. Or, if you have riposte and finishing move, you can counter attack with riposte, but you cannot follow up the riposte with a finishing move to gain a double whammy.

Again, just my opinion.