I would be more inclined to say: you get one Interupt for every initiative pass you have. THough, using up ALL your passes is kind of bad, since it means you cannot do anything the first pass of the next round.

Actually Fuchs, you have hit the nail on the head - all the Riposte manuever actually does is return the melee combat system back to SR3 days, whereby each time you were attacked you had a potential to do damage to the opponent. As it stands, two people with Riposte could attack back and forth until one or the other ran their defense DP too low and got hit (again, this is something you see all the time in movies, Bourne being a prime example, but Gross Point Blank and numerous others have showcase fights where the lead character and his skilled opponent block and attack repeatedly in a matter of seconds until one finds an opening). Remember the defense DP decreases for every attack, but the attack DP remains the same, so the chain will be stopped reasonably quickly.

Again, if people want to houserule that kind of thing out, that is entirely up to you. I like both the flavour and the crunch of the RAW, and with the exception of houseruling away the chain of Finishing Moves and potentially the Riposte on a Full Defense Parry (credit to Fortune) I am happy with the rules as they are.

No, that would be the Two Weapon Style - Disarm - Armis de Mano - Combo.

This is worse, because it actually eats up Actions.

All the RAW and argumetns aside, I simply can't accept that you can "borrow" actions from the future to that degree.

Not just for verisimilitude reasons - although those count too, there should be a limit to how many actions you can do within an IP, especially without having reflex boosting cyber, spells or powers - but for game balance and game flow reasons as well.

So, no "and now I can't act for 30 seconds after I fought for 3 seconds" stuff for me.

Hmmm, so interrupt (or declare) Full Parry, defend against opponent's weapon attack, disarm weapon, inflict normal damage. Then rinse and repeat as many times as you have defense DP without using any extra actions.

Not quite the same (and not quite what Bourne does in a couple of scenes) as it only works if your opponent is armed, it still uses up an action (or interrupt action) and you can only do it on an opponent once (unless they are dual wielding and/or have several arms). It also carries a heavier DP penalty.

I still favour the standard Block > Riposte combo, as it is functional against armed and unarmed opponents and only uses the same number of actions (and combines well with Counterstrike to increase damage on the Riposte).

If you use Two Weapon Style as stated above, said combo uses no Actions.

And of course it is self-limiting due to the fact that one needs an armed opponent - and if one succeeds, he isn't armed anymore.

But you actually have to be wielding two weapons for that to be applicable. It wouldn't work with Unarmed Combat.

In that case, it would require Full Defense as an Interrupt Action (once!)... but then allow you multiple Disarms. Of course, Disarm comes a penalty...

Good point on the Two Weapon Style - combine that with Ambidextrous and you effectively get a free Full Parry at all times. Now that could be considered to be broken, especially as Full Parry and melee attack are all based on your melee combat skill.

So Agility 5, Reaction 5, Strength 4, Blades 5 (Swords +2), Muscle Toner 2, Reflex Recorder (Blades), Wired 2, +2 DV to Blades from Martial Arts and a pair of Vibroswords (all of which is eminently achievable at char gen) gives you:

Melee Attack DP of 15 (with +1 from Reach) doing 8P (and 3 IPs worth of attacks)
Full Parry DP of 21 DP usable for no action cost

So cheap on BP (one skill to rule them all) and pretty deadly in combat.

At least this is now a reason to use melee weapons. I have always found that if you pump a bio-adept with Killing Hands/Critical Strike, Bone Density/Lacing and various +1 DV Martial Arts you can always end up with a higher DV when Unarmed than you can with pretty much any melee weapon in the game.

hah samuelbeckett... I stayed out longer than you (granted I've forced myself not to look at this forum for a few days)

Anyways I'm still on the one Interrupt per pass, but I'd like to say that there should be some mundane quality that allows for a second Initiative pass. I think our Jason Bourne's, Jackie Chan's and Jet Li's would be much better shown as actually having a second IP. No more than 2 from said quality, but it would give the martial arts master something pretty cool.

Ok, next fixes to some of the house rules posted...
"You can't use interrupts into the next turn." Will not allow people with 1 IP to interrupt at all (no full defense for mooks), and then it offsets your time as you can only spaz on seconds divisible by 3 for people with multiple IPs.

Also just remember if you have someone with one IP doing these crazy things, your cybered players who have spent out the nuyen and essense for multiple passes will be quite annoyed that they can't actually improve by learning those things as much. Since the only bonus they will have over the other is a shorter recovery time (which will happen mostly after the fight is over, when it no longer matters). Don't try and balance Martial Arts vs Multiple IPs, remember that if a = b then a+b should be better than both, since they are not mutually exclusive. Just a note.

Anyways enjoy, will try and wait a few more days to see what develops here.

Mundanes have that ability already, its called Edge. That is what I would say that Jason Bourne, Jet Li and the likes have...just a lot of Edge...you don't seem them in 10 minute battles, so it makes sense.

And for others, you can use combat drugs and Edge...IMO, there is no need for qualities to do this...its already in the rules.

In my games, everyone has their IP, and then can use their action within their IP...whether that is a held action, an interrupt, full defense or just a regular action...no borrowing to the future or infinite chains at my table.

So deek, if someone with 1 IP managed to get initiative, attacked in ranged combat, and then was charged by someone else, would you let them Interrupt into a Full Defense at the cost of their 1 IP in the next Combat Turn. Or would you just say tough luck and they can't Full Defense?

If you didn't allow them Full Defense but they still successfully blocked/parried the attack, would you allow them to use their Riposte manuever?

On the first example, no Full Defense...as they already used their action. If this was a player, I'd highly recommend trying to get more IPs or holding their action until they are attacked and then interrupt to Full Defense at that time. There's actually a lot of strategy needed in most combat encounters, especially if you are working with less numbers or less IPs. And I wouldn't say tough luck, I'd mention it to them at the beginning of the IP, letting them know that if they act first and everyone's not dead, you're gonna get attacked and all you can do is soak. Also, I would let them use the interception rules and a free action to attack that charging mook after the ranged combat action (which would have been 1 Complex or 2 Simple Actions).

As for the second example, again, no. You can't interrupt with actions you don't have. If they built their character this way, to be a melee master, I'd suggest they don't jump to attack right at the beginning, that they actually wait and allow the opponent to act into his advantage. I mean, for these builds, it seems very important to hold onto your actions, so you can use them to their fullest potential.

So in your interpretation, the Martial Arts manuevers in Arsenal are pretty much useless for anyone who doesn't have some sort of augmentation (magical or 'ware) to enable them to move at supernatural speeds?

In essence, you are saying that interrupt only works if you choose to wait for the other guy to attack you? And even then, despite the fact the rules are clear that I can block, parry or dodge as many times as I have DP left for defense, I can't trigger any manuevers that require me to block, parry or dodge.

You are also directly houseruling the Full Defense interrupt rules, as under your ruling no-one can interrupt to Full Defense unless they gain intitative over their attacker and hold their action until the person attacks (which begs the question, why they don't just declare a normal Full Defense on their IP as that would be mechanically the same).

This actually ups the lethality of combat (and the value of initative) as the only sensible response is to always attack first (thus denying your opponent the ability to use Full Defense) unless faced with overwhelming odds. Thus your mooks will have less defense DP on average.

Or have I misinterpreted your post...do you allow interrupts prior to the persons IP in a given Combat Turn?

For Jackie Chan he's a fun martial artist so edge definately. I like the idea of auto-injectors placed in Jason Bourne so drugs work there... But damn Jet Li just kicks ass, and I don't think drugs/edge is his style. And just for fun Chuck Norris only needs one pass)

So deek is just not using interrupt actions at all? I think thats a little extreme, lets see if I can draw my view out which might help people.

Basically I see the characters actions like this

...1......2......3...

During the numbers those are you turn in initiative, during the ..., if you have held an action from the previous turn you can use it, or (if you haven't already) you can interrupt and it will use you're next pass. The ...... is not part of either action exclusively but part of both. Along these lines, just to fill out the theory not that I think it'll be disputed, if you have a held action you can't interrupt, or if you interrupt you loose your held action. As soon as you interrupt you say I am in my next action, you could use your held action, and then follow it with a finishing move though.

...1..i...V
...1......2......3...

So if I interrupt as "i", my action 2 extends from there to at least the time of my actual initiative ("V"). After that I would be free to interrupt again since I would be in the area that is actually 2/3 action.

Note: the use of the word ACTION not pass. For someone with 3 IP's, 1-2-3 are passes, for someone with 1 IP, 1-2-3 are turns, for someone with 2 IP's 1-2 are passes, and 3 is the first pass of the next turn. Continuity must be held for all numbers of IPs.

Actually, that's exactly not the way Interrupt Actions are intended to work.

"Only one pending Interrupt Action" is a possible interpretation of RAW, as is "Infinite pending Interrupt Actions", as is "Infinite Finishing Moves".
But your take is a complete redo of the way it is suggested in the main book.

To answer my own question as to Full Defense as interrupt and how long it lasts... Be warned, this will be quite confusing and could be disputed by any number of ways of reading the rules. But for my concept of gray area between actions this is how I'm seeing it work out.

...1..f..........V
...1......2......3...

While on Full Defense it will last until 3, since you're just pulling your 2 action earlier. (Everything between 2-3 is still pass 2)
As soon as going into Full Defense all Defense Modifiers should drop, since you are starting your next action. They will begin to cumulate again.

Now this is possible
...1..f........i
...1......2......3...

If I interrupt in the 2/3 area my full defense ends, since I am starting my next action. I could in fact drop Full Defense in order to switch to a parry and riposte. At the time I interrupt my defense modifiers are again dropped, and begin to cumulate again. This could work very much as the rope-a-dope maneuver, where you let your defense wear and wear, until they think they have you, drop the full defense to parry (regaining all those lost defense dice), and riposte and drop the attacker. Beautiful...

Yes this is also possible
...1..f......f.........
...1......2......3...

At the first f you interrupt for full defense, at the second f you interrupt again for full defense. The beauty here is you can interrupt with your full defense whenever your dice pool is just getting too low to dodge anymore. And your modifiers will vanish. Sounds broken except that this person is doing nothing but dodging for a long time, and is not a danger to anyone at all. And he can't react immediately after declaring his full defense, the closest he comes to immediate counter attack is the person before him in initiative attacks he declares full defense, then the person after his initiative attacks and he riposte's. He can't riposte the person he full defensed on since he has no actions until his initiative.

There this should flesh out my theory on actions and time

Nightwalker450, I am in favour of a simple approach to interrupt actions and their relationship to pending IP. That is, when an interrupt 'borrows' a future IP, it essentially acts as your action on that IP.

So in the 1....2....3 example, if I Full Defense inbetween 1 and 2, I am on Full Defense until 2 comes up, at which point I only have a Free Action available. I then can either stay on normal defense until 3 and then attack, or interrupt again to continue my Full Defense (this can then be put on rinse and repeat).

According to RAW, defense DP modifiers reset at the the beginning of your next action. Although the 'next action' could be debated, I believe that it refers to your next IP (whether you have borrowed it or not).

So to put numbers on this, assume a DP of 10 normally and 15 under Full Defense.

On 1 I have my 10 DP. I am attacked by Mook1 inbetween 1 and 2, and choose to interrupt to Full Defense (so now my DP is 15). I successfully dodge his attack. I am then attacked by Mook2, also inbetween 1 and 2. That reduces my DP to 14. Finally, Mook3 attacks, reducing my DP to 13.

On 2, I have reached my next action, but it has already been used to interrupt Full Defense. My Full Defense also stops at this time. As I want to attack back at some point, I choose not to interrupt into Full Defense again. However, as I have reached my next action, my penalties are refreshed and my normal DP is back to 10. Mook1, Mook2 and Mook3 all attack, and I dodge the first attack with DP 10, the next with DP 9 and the final with DP 8.

On 3, I now attack Mook1, and my defense DP also refreshes back to 10.

This was a simple example, obviously if I had Riposte, Finishing Move, Two Weapon Style, Watchful Guard or other manuevers then I may end up with less reduction in DP, or more future actions borrowed.

I'm not planning on debating my theory I just wanted to put it up. When this debate started I was actually thinking as you posted for Full Defense, but as this developed that theory came out. It was only as posting my view on interrupts, that I realized the Defense Modifier/Full Defense implications of it. YMMV, but it seems fluid enough, and complex (yet still understandable) enough that I think it will provide the right flavor for my games.

Maybe I'm stubborn in my thinking, but I've rationalized something that works for me (taking the breather from the topic helped). Thanks for the help in the realization and its been a pleasure debating with you sam And everyone else.

Officially retiring from this topic.

No problem, been a pleasure debating with you too...

Yeah, little bit of misinterpretation...

The MA maneuvers are not useless for unaugmented folks, as there are still ways to get more IPs, e.g. Edge and Combat Drugs. I'm just saying that someone with, let's say 3 IPs, is always going to own someone with a single IP in combat...its just the way the world is, IMO.

As to the interrupt, I suppose that is correct if you are winning initiative...if you get to go first, you can choose to act now, or hold back. The way I see it, the 1 IP MA guy, that wins initiative can choose to attack or hold his action. But, at any point before this held action comes up (let's say he said until the ninja attacks him), he could in fact, interrupt. So, if a mook jumps into the action and attacks the 1 IP MA guy, he could interrupt at that point, thus using his later held action. Now all of this takes place in the same IP. We are not jumping ahead and borrowing more actions that haven't yet been made available.

Now, if the 1IP MA guy, kills the mook in IP 1, and the ninja is still attacking in IP 2, I would hope the 1 IP MA guy would use a point of Edge to get a second pass...

Same goes for Full Defense...If I win initiative, but am up against 3 mooks, I may not want to just attack one and leave myself open to be pummeled. I may hold my action until all of them act, but at any point I get attacked, I may want to interrupt and go Full Defense. I can always interrupt to Full Defense though, if I haven't used my action in that pass. This allows all those low initiative guys to still have a chance to survive, which is what I thought was the point of being able to interrupt.

The other thing with Full Defense is, that the 1 IP guy, goes Full Defense, and that will in fact last until the next initative, as RAW says that Full Defense is effective until the players next action. Again, a benefit in the RAW to allow 1 IP guys to not be completely worthless...

Hopefully, this makes sense...I view this as all in RAW. If you were allowed to act first, and then in the same pass, borrow your next action (in IP 2) to go Full Defense or Interrupt), then you are getting what, two Complex Actions in the same pass? I don't think that is the way the rules were intended. I do admit, I'll need to reread Arsenal again to make sure I am not missing anything...but I do believe each IP should be all inclusive and actions shouldn't be borrowed...

As Rotbart pointed out, any interpretation that does not allow you to interrupt and use your next IP is definitely not RAW. In terms of how many actions you can 'borrow' into the future, that is open to interpretation, but the very nature of interrupt Full Defense in the BBB is to enable you to use up your next IP to go on Full Defense if you lose initiative.

As Rotbart pointed out, any interpretation that does not allow you to interrupt and use your next IP is definitely not RAW. In terms of how many actions you can 'borrow' into the future, that is open to interpretation, but the very nature of interrupt Full Defense in the BBB is to enable you to use up your next IP to go on Full Defense if you lose initiative.

I think that goes back to the definition of "next available action". Personally, an action in a future IP, is not available...

Granted, that's my interpretation, but because "next available action" is not defined, everything is interpreted, and therefore cannot be supported by RAW.

So, that leaves three general opinions:

a) Can only "borrow" actions from the current IP, assuming you have not yet taken an action.
b) Can only "borrow" actions from the next IP, thus limiting a character to one interrupt action in the same IP.
c) Can "borrow" actions from any future IPs, thus being limited by DP.

All of these will work, but each of these have a different feel at the game table.

And of course c) requires you to keep track.

And trying to explain why your martial artist is staring at a wall for the next 30 seconds after every combat:)

This has been used a few times, but is moving an action in SR4? In SR3, walking and running just imposed TN penalties, they didn't count as actions. If SR4 is at all similar in that regard, you have someone who can only do very simple tasks for a half-minute until their concious mind manages to wrest control back from their reflexes.

Good point...movement (walking) is always free...

Still seems kinda hokie that for x seconds, the player can walk around, but couldn't open a door:)

Of course, he will have some Free Actions to spare, so he could even run and 'talk'.

"Hey Joe, it's over - get movin'." - "Ugh..."

In many ways SR3 made this much easier, though again as SR is in general very abstract.

In SR3 counter attack was free. Limited by only how many attacks were coming in. TNs got higher as you had more opponents. So in game sure the Old Master could counter attack 6 opponents, each counter attack had a TN penalty. (iirc it was +1 TN per each extra opponent... (though SR4 is mudding my SR3 mind...))
The operative word was "Free". That is irrespective of free, simple or complex actions.

The issue comes into play with SR4 in the fact that counter attack/ riposte/ finishing move is now accountable. Whether it be parry requirements and/ or IP cost.

I do not have the book and so cant read myself, but after following this thread, it seems that one of the problems is doing such from a Full Defense position. IE: already giving up, the up and coming IP.

Aside from that does riposte+ finishing move cost 1 IP or 2 for each? ala 2 IPs.

If the move combo does cost 1 IP then the simple rule for me would be that that combo cannot be used with Full Defense and that combo cannot be used more than once per IP.

So in one Iniative I could do any of the following:
1. Attack
2. Full Defense (killing this IP giving me defense vs. all attacks until I can act again. A 1 IP guy can attack, then burn his next IP to full defense thereby defending for the remainder of this Initiative and the Next full one (3 seconds)))
3. Parry (defense) then riposte + finishing move (killing the next IP leaving me standard defense vs. all attacks until I can act again. A 1 IP guy can attack, then burn his next IP to counter attack thereby leaving himself only able to standard defense for the remainder of this initiative and the next full one (3 seconds)))


As I stated before I am not one for promoting time travel.

Riposte and Finishing Move both require interrupt actions, so that would be a 2 IP combo.

And the period interrupt Full Defense lasts for is pretty well described in the BBB. Essentially triggering an interrupt action uses up your next complex action. So if we assume someone has 3 IP and they are fighting an opponent with 2 IP. If you use IP number 1 for an attack, triggering interrupt Full Defense before IP number 2 does the following:

Your IP 1 - Attack opponent in Melee, using a Complex Action.
Opponent IP 1 - they attack, you trigger interrupt Full Defense (and keep Full Defense until you reach your IP 2).
Your IP 2 - You only have a Free Action left, as you used your Complex Action on Opponent IP 1. Also, your Full Defense no longer applies.
Opponent IP 2 - they attack, you can either trigger another interrupt Full Defense (which would then use up IP 3) or you can perform a normal defense.
Your IP 3 - Presuming you didn't trigger another Full Defense, you now have a Complex Action (or 2 Simple Actions) to attack with.

Where people seem to think this breaks down is if you add additional interrupt actions into the mix, as potentially you could borrow 2 or more IP of your future actions, leaving you with only Free Actions in those IP. So in the case of Riposte + Finishing Move, you could get the following sequence:

Your IP 1 - Attack opponent in Melee, using a Complex Action.
Opponent IP 1 - they attack, you trigger interrupt Risposte and interrupt Finishing Move.
Your IP 2 - You only have a Free Action left, as you used your Complex Action on Opponent IP 1.
Opponent IP 2 - they attack.
Your IP 3 - You only have a Free Action left, as you used your Complex Action on Opponent IP 1.

Yes, I concur that in extreme examples (i.e. if you also triggered a Riposte and Finishing Move on Opponent IP 2 as well and on every Opponent IP after that), you could end up with only Free Actions in the next 10 Combat Turns worth of IPs. But I counter that given the relative lethality of Melee Combat (generally lower Impact Armor ratings, generally higher DPs, potential to get much higher DVs, particularly if you are an adept) the likelihood of a combat continuing to the point that you are unable to meaningfully act for 30 seconds is limited.

I can't really help you on the rule side of things, because I don't really play initiative as written.

But I think that setting the rules aside for a moment might help to think about interrupt actions. As the name implies, interrupt actions are actions that interrupt an action. The best and simplest example is the full dodge interrupt. Let's ignore the rules and consider what the action represents. Here is how I see it: the character is hidden behind cover, he wants to get up, shoot and get back down. But as he gets up, he notices that there's someone throwing a grenade toward him. So instead of shooting as he wanted to do, he'll dive away from the spot where the grenade should fall. After diving, he'll be able to act again, or keep on dodging the grenades.
In game terms, this means he declares a shoot action (or would have declared a shoot action next turn) but decides to interrupt with a full dodge, loosing his expected shooting action (be it the action he wanted to do in the next IP or next combat turn).

Now let's consider riposte and finishing move. Someone charges the character. The character can just defend until he gets an opportunity to attack. Suddenly, the character gets an opening. He interrupts his defense and attacks right away. As he's attacking now, he won't be attacking later when he was supposed to (his next IP or next combat turn) because he'll be busy doing his riposte. Problem is, if the opponent has more IP, he'll be able to attack again while the character is supposed to be doing his riposte... The only way I can explain it would be that the character has an opening for his riposte, but while he moves to take advantage of it, the opponent has time to attack him.
For example, the attacker strikes with a sword, the character deflects with his own sword and gets an opportunity to strike. But the opponent is fast to react and is able to, for example, punch the character with his other hand, even if it's too late to prevent the character's riposte.
Accordingly in game terms, I wouldn't allow the character to riposte again, or only by interrupting his riposte action.

Hmm, yeah I have nothing to add to the 2 Hit combo I really need the book to digest and mull it over.

However, onto the Full Defense Interrupt:
I see why you say it works that way. The BBB is actually unclear to me and I believe the intent is that a Full Defense Interrupt should last until you can act again.

ie:
3 IPs for simplicity sake are 1 second each.
1st second you attack
After the 1st But prior to the 2nd you get attacked and declare Full Defense Interrupt
2nd Second you have a free action but are still in Full Defense
after the 2nd but prior to the 3rd you are attacked again but can use your Full Defense as it is still in effect.
3rd Second Your Full Defense Interrupt has expired and you may do whatever you like , Including declaring another Full Defense (non interrupt)

Else full defense is really a deathnell. If a character is bad in a way that makes him burn an IP to GTFO, then it is unproductive for that to cause him to not be able to attack and not be able to full defend for another IP, having to just walk or run and take it. ala, if he can take it the second time why not just take it the first and attack...

Good points, although I don't agree - I think the reason Full Defense interrupt is not productive is that it is supposed to be a last ditch reflexive action to avoid getting killed. The example in the BBB directly states that on the following action you cannot do anything but use a Free Action to move away from trouble, because you have already used up your Complex Action. I feel the intent is that you have effectively taken your Complex Action on your opponents IP, and it therefore lasts from then until your IP. On your IP, you would normally get to act again, but you only have a Free Action left. That is effectively the punishment for pulling your action forward, otherwise everyone would interrupt as it would be mechanically the same as using Full Defense on your IP, with the added bonus of extra dice against attackers who go before you.

Basically this encourages you to either keep interrupting Full Defense and using Free Actions to move to get out of the combat area, or stop Full Defending and suck it up using your normal defense in order to be able to take offensive actions. This seems eminently sensible to me. In addition, manuevers like Two Weapon Style and Riposte provide additional options to allow people who are overwhelmed by multiple attackers (or a single very good attacker) to fight back despite using Full Defense.

IMHO, Full Defense is really for getting out of troublesome situations, not for staying and fighting.