Ok...

Bob win intitiative and bitch slaps his opponent and then uses his finish move manuever from his martial arts quality to follow that up with a second bitch slap to the Troll Bouncer.....Then the Troll Bouncer gets initiative and trys to grapple Bob by the balls but Bob goes on full defense.....

How does this play out if Bob has...
3 ip's.... (1st and 2nd bitch slaps are 1st and 2nd ip's and then his full defense eats up his 3rd?)
2 ip's... (1st and 2nd ip's are bitch slaps and the 1st ip of his next turn is full defense??)
1 ip.....(1st turn bitch slap, 2nd turn bitch slap, 3 turn full defense)

How far into future IP's/Turns can you dip?? What would happen if instead of going on full defense he trys to kick the Troll in the balls with his 3rd IP would he get a follow up attack which would eat up the 1st ip of his next turn???

I dont have arsenal so there is probably a sentence in "finishing move" or something that says it has to be in the same turn but I figured I would ask.

I've actually wondered about this too...


So let's say Old-Blind-Master™ with only 1 IP gets attacked by 4 guys...
The first one tries to hit, Old-Blind-Master™ blocks and get a riposte attack, it hits, he gets to do a finish move, baddy number 1 goes down...
The second one tries to hit, Old-Blind-Master™ blocks and get a riposte attack, it hits, he gets to do a finish move, baddy number 2 goes down...
The third one tries to hit, Old-Blind-Master™ blocks and get a riposte attack, it hits, he gets to do a finish move, baddy number 3 goes down...
The fourth one misses, now it would be Old-Blind-Master™ turn, but he gave it up with his first riposte...
In turn 2, Old-Blind-Master™ still cannot do anything, because of the first finishing move, in fact he'll have to wait until turn 7 before he can act again, provided he doesn't block, riposte and finish the last guy...

IS that correct? Or am I also missing some obvious things?

i'd say you can reserve up to as many IPs as you have in a round of initative. 3 passes = 3 passes, it just depends on when you take them.

Yeah, this hits on something that has been mentioned in the arsenal threads. Nowhere does it say that you can't keep barrowing actions - just that an interrupt action takes the place of your next "available" action... which, by some definition might be several rounds from now since you keep barrowing actions (making them un"available") - which makes the next "available" action some time from now.

It also doesn't say that these maneuvers can only be used once per phase (or even once per attack). You could hit someone, then, because you hit him use finishing move to attack again and hit, then because you hit use finishing move to attack again... and so on and so on until you miss. Afterwards, you might not be able to act again for a few minutes - but if that was the only opponent, it might not matter.

I doubt that is how the rules were intended, but with no real clarification on what "next available action" means, that is one valid interpretation.

I do agree that a mundane martial artist (1 IP) should be able to use interrupt maneuvers. So I wouldn't use Daier Mune's interpretation - but I also probably wouldn't let a PC pull a 100-hit combo on an enemy (which, if you have set-up becomes easier and more deadly the longer you keep the combo going). *shrugs*

Heh you trouble maker Blackhat! There are no cascading responses, there are no agent smiths, there are no infinite finish moves. You get to make one follow up attack per "normal" hit.

I'd also be againt riposte + finishing move. If you block an attack you get a riposte attack which isnt a "normal" attack that is used for finishing move.

Thats something we need a ruling on though.

There is one example in Arsenal where they say you can string together maneuvers. Set-up + Finishing move, I believe is the example.

As for the rest of that, I'm not saying *I* would allow it... just that the rules as written don't prevent it. Since you're asking about the game you're starting soon, you'll pretty much need to make up your own ruling. Allowing one interrupt action per normal attack might be fine, but the combination of reposite + finishing move (or set up, or whatever else) is something that a player who owns arsenal might expect. As long as you and the player in question can agree ahead of time on it, it shouldn't be an issue.

Unfortunately (as has been brought up in other topics, before) a large amount of the Shadowrun rules seem to need to be agreed upon with a GM prior to their inclusion or exclusion, since they're unclear.

I haven't read too deeply in detail on this. But I'd only allow you to borrow one ahead of where you are. So you borrow one, and until that turn comes you can't borrow another. Once that turn passes, you can borrow again even if you weren't able to act on that one.

Otherwise between Full Defense / Riposte / Finishing Move, it doesn't matter how many passes you have any more you can act when and how you want, just eventually you might need to stand and stare at a wall for a few minutes which doesn't make sense in any of the rules.

"Hey chummer, he's dead we need to go before reinforcements arrive... You ok, why you just standing there?"

"Gimme 30 seconds, that last combo seems to have paralyzed me."

heh, looks like they brought back the old master that could defeat a higher ip foe as long as old master never goes on the offensive
(yep, referring to that old standing SR close combat artifact that supposedly was gone in SR4. at least now it takes some points of actual advantages)

Only allowing them to borrow 1 action is certainly a legitimate approach, but it does seem a little to limiting, especially with Arsenal giving other "action borrowing" choices.

Unlimted action borrowing, I'm surprised know one caught that..you would think something that exploitable would have at least engendered some errata to prevent that.

Here's my idea.. a "cap" on the numbered of borrowed actions equal to 1/2 your reaction rounded up. (and you regain said actions at a rate=your number of IP's per round) I think this gives your high reaction/1 IP zen master on a relatvily equal footing to a single multiple IP opponent or multiple grunts, but a couple of chromed up samurai (or psy ads) could still take him out.

That seems like a quality character concept though. He can take down an army of melee mooks, but then passes out for a few minutes until all his borrowed actions catch up. Toss in some heavy ballistic armor (material and magical, and maybe miscellaneous) so he's fairly protected against casual ranged attacks while the rest of the team works on other threats.

Even better against pack critters, since they don't tend to have guns at all.

I don't know if everyone is overlooking this or not, but the limiting factor is already there. Each defended attack is giving a -1 DP. So yeah, your old master is going to be able to continue to borrow actions to infinity, but his DP is finite, and he's eventually going to run out of effective DP on his counters.

Same thing with Full Defense, really. Give me 20 mooks all attacking the same runner, and those last 5 or so are going to have a field day!

That's not bad. I had not thought of that. That ties up the defensive maneuvers rather nicely.
Stacking finishing moves also limits itself eventually, since the PC might miss at some point. (Although that becomes less likely as your opponent gets wailed on).
You could still slap step-up on someone all day long, though, since each one adds dice to the next one. When you finally finish with a finishing move, you can have a dice pool as high as you want - and I'm certain that the authors didn't intend this.

Well, looks like you've missed the point...
It's not about the defense, it's about the interrupt actions that take away your next available one...
So how does the defense penalty help stop the infinite combo attack?

Well, its stops it by not allowing it to be effective. Let's say the defender has a DP of 30 and he is fighting 50 mooks. In the first IP, let's say that every one of the 50 mooks attack. So, assuming no DP modifiers except for the defense penalty, after 25 of the mooks attack (which the old master has used an interrupt action to defend, thus borrowing his next 25 actions), he is down to a DP of 5. Is he really going to want to interrupt again, trading his 5 DP interrupt attack for his 26th action?

At some point, that defense penalty adds up and will force the old man to stop interrupting. After 30 mooks, old man has no more dice. Sure, by the rules, he could still interrupt after the 30th mook, borrow a future action and all, but he has 0 DP to do anything...so what's the point?

I think you are both missing the point...

Technically you are both right - provided the Blind Master can block or parry, he can then use an interrupt action to Riposte, followed by an interrupt action for Finishing Move if the Riposte attack is successful. This could continue ad infinitum expect for one important point - for each subsequent attack he has to block or parry, he loses 1 from his DP (of course Watchful Guard could drop that penalty for the second attack, but that is slightly beside the point). Given the maximum DP anyone can achieve is around the 32 mark (presuming he begins this epic display with a Full Defense interrupt action), he would have to stop after his 32nd defense.

Of course, then you could start pulling out Longshot tests based on Edge to continue the cycle, but that would likely lead to a sudden death by GM.

Yes, this does mean the Blind Master will have stolen his next 32 turns of actions and will have to stand still for that length of time (visualise him collapsing on the floor from exhaustion if it makes you feel better).

so, with one round being something in the area of 3 seconds, thats what 1.5 mins of rest before he is back in action?

and if he has 3 ip's he could get away with what, 10 seconds of rest?

i think you're taking the interrupt actions a bit too literal. i don't think that after completing your interrupt action you stand still waiting for orders like a drone. the 'taking up the next action' portion of the text (i assume) means that you can't take an action, because you're already taking your action (by full dodging, riposting, or finishing moving). and again, i don't think that interrupt actions should extend beyond the current initiative roll.

While I agree with this at first does this mean that:
1. You can never interrupt action on your last IP
2. Persons with 1 IP can never interrupt action.

That little rule is already broken when it comes to Full Defense (an interrupt action), or is it your contention that characters with 1 IP cannot ever use Full Defense?

full defense extends over new initiative rolls? huh. wasn't aware of that, and i'm upset that i know that now. it just doesnt make sense to me.

one thing about full defense, one can either initiate it on ones pass, or any time before using a interrupt action...

so a 1 ip character could go full defense when attacked by someone else with higher initiative, forgoing his action for that round, and maintain full defense for the whole round. that would be he only action for that whole round tho...

full defense, ones activated, last until the characters next initiative pass iirc.

sadly that does not explain how to deal with interrupt actions as used in martial arts, as they can show up at any time...

Alternately, a character could choose to use his Action normally, and then immediately declare Full Defense, which would use his next Action. If he only had the one IP, then that next Action will come in the following round.

and if there isnt any following round?

Then the character stands around in a wary crouch for a couple of seconds.

All right, I was in a rush, I should have been clearer, yes, this does, in a fashion, limit defensive interrupt actions, but what about offensive interrupt actions...
I hit you, I have finish move, I get to go again, I hit you, I have finish move, I get to go again, I hit you... You see the pattern...
Nothing in RAW prohibits this, no reduction in DP, meaning, if the man is also cripple, and fighting a cyberzombie troll with a 3 defensive DP, the old man can keep punching until he misses (unlikely) or he knocks out the troll (unlikely and he can contunie to punch anyway) meaning that theoretically, I can use up all my action for the next 3 days in combat rounds and still keep going...

I'm thinking it's called a 'Finishing Move' because you finish your Action with it. I don't really see getting 7 or 9 separate Finishing Moves in one Action.

Yes, Fortune, this is the logical way of ruling it, but nothing in the RAW states it is that way, it just says that if you hit, you can make another attach designed to finish off your opponent, it doesn't say anything about it being the last possible attack, and by RAW, finish move is an attack so it itself qualifies for finish move, so you could, per RAW keep going...
I agree this is silly and not the way it is supposed to work...
But, the defense penalty of -1 per defense roll doesn't limit interrupt actions per se, it limits defense action, which indirectly limits interrupt actions...
Nothing limits how mane interrupt actions you can "borrow"...
That was my point...
However shoddy I tried to make it...

I understood your point. I just don't see the problem with making a ruling that states only one Maneuver of each type is usable per Action Phase. This doesn't even affect Full Defense, as that is an ongoing action, and cannot be declared multiple times in one Phase (although it can be used more than once, it is still the same defensive action).

Also keep in mind that all Maneuvers must be declared before any dice are rolled for the test.

You mean you have to say you'll use a finish move before you even hit him the first time?

You could always declare the use of one hundred finishing moves, and find out how many times you hit, later.

Uhm, as far as I could tell, deep borrowing is the POINT of these maneuvers. The give you some severely restricted 'extra' ips now at the cost of virtual paralysis later (although I guess you could still move, yes?). Sure, if people keep swarming Blind Master, he'll keep dropping them, but after the second or third guy goes down, you don't suppose number 3 or 4 are going to back off, pull a gun and shoot him down? All of the interrupts are limited and with the possible exception of Finishing Move, don't self chain.

Now to see if I can viably work this into the secular Qabbalistic Mystic Adept, Krav Maga master I'm working on as a backup...

Fortune thats a great quote but still. Look at my very first post with Bob and him only having 1 IP.

Turn 1:
Bob bitch slaps the troll and declares he will use a finishing move, he hits and makes his second attack (2, ip's) his turn is over.
Troll Bouncer trys to grab Bob by the balls and Bob declares full defense (3 ip's.) Troll's turn is over..
Turn 2:
Bob is full defending still.....(is that even possable? lol)(2 ip's of rest left)
Troll Bouncer attacks..Bob declares riposte?? Blocks Troll's attack and counter attacks (1ip for riposte and 1 for attack = 4 ip's of rest to go)
Turn 3:
Bob is .....resting? (3 ip's to go !!)
Troll attacks and Bob declares riposte... etc etc....

Parrying and Blocking are specific defensive Actions, totally seperate from Full Defense. A character using Full Defense can not use Riposte.

Wouldn't Full Parry count as a parry?

What I like with those infinite interrupt action things is imagining the guy spending the rest of his day unable to do anything because he had to use a lot of interrupt action.

"What's up with Bob? He's been standing there all day!"
"He fought some people there."
"Oh, I see."

I still say that Riposte can be used during a Full Parry - the combat chapter of the BBB seems to imply that Parry, Block and Dodge are not 'actions' as per the Free, Simple or Complex definitions (the fact that you can do them as many times are you like in a turn supports this). So they are merely combat options as part of Melee Combat, which in turn are enhanced by the Full Defense action. And Arsenal states that manuevers can be used with any other combat options unless specified directly.

Given that the max an extremely optimised character could do with this shtick is go all 'Burly Brawl' on a group of people who are actively trying to beat on him in Melee Combat (remember, this is a purely defensive stunt, if no-one attacks you in melee it is rendered useless), and that the way around that is for one of the enemy to just step back a few feet and fill the melee expert full of your choice of ammo, I don't think it is a game breaker.

Maybe Steven Seagal was a consultant for the devs...this stunt is so out of his movies it is untrue.

Wrong. Melee Defense is not an Action by default. And a Full Parry that succeeds still satifies the Riposte rule.

The whole point of Full Defense is that the character is spending his entire Action (or the next available one) fully defending himself. I am under the impression that, other than movement, no non-defensive Actions may be taken while utilizing the Full Defense option.

To me that seems to tie things all together quite well, and alleviates much of the endless loop problems that may crop up with Riposte. If you choose to play things in a different manner though, that's cool.

While that may be your impression, the RAW does not state so... and, in fact the Disarm Maneuver depends on taking an 'action' while on Full Defense - even causing Damage when using the Arnis de Mano advantage.

Also note that while RAW does not exclude looping, it is not intended operation.
So the longest combination of Interrupt Actions would be Full Defense - Riposte - Finishing Move. That is, three actions spend.

Agreed that Finishing Move is not intended to be looped, and that is certainly how I would rule it.

However, whilst the longest combination of Interrupt Actions would be 3, these are in reponse to a trigger (Melee Attack by an opponent) which could potentially happen several times in a single turn. Admittedly, the likelihood of a scenario where extensive numbers of melee combatants are attacking a single PC is slim, but the potential exists for someone to 'borrow' their next 30 odd actions in a single turn, resulting in them performing crazy dance moves for 1 pass (for the complex action they stole for Full Defense) and then standing warily for another 29 passes (during which time they could continue to interrupt for Full Defense actions if they were attacked). That is between 21 and 90 seconds of 'inaction', which as I said could be represented as exhaustion from the physical effort.

It still breaks the concept of Combat Turns completly. So my ruling would be that such Interrupt Actions can only be invoked once per Pass available to the characters.

That makes sense.

I've read and reread involved sections and I can't help but come to the same conclusions. Giving up your next IP is just that your next, not your next 5. Gotta go with Fortunes choice with finishing move, I'd say it's just that a finisher not a free extra actions ability.

Except that nowhere does it say that you give up your "next IP" - or even your "next action".
It says that whatever maneuver uses up "your next available action".
That has always been the problem, if they said it used up your next IP there wouldn't be anything to get confused about. Similarly, if they had defined anywhere what "next available" meant.

Instead, I agree that your next IP is normally your next available action - but the moment you use a maneuver that uses it up, it becomes, by definition "unavailable"... so the following IP is the "next available" one.

I still think that that is probably the correct interpretation... but since the rules aren't clear or definite, players will come to the game with different expectations - ESPECIALLY on PBP games like the ones on this board, where every GM potentially reads the rules a little differently. I think Abbandon would do well to take that approach in his game, but I wanted to warn him to discuss it with the player in question ahead of time.

I only have the SR4 BBB for reference so I can't discuss the actual wording of finishing moves. However, purely based on a mechanics standpoint, I have to agree with Fortune as well.

I also have run scenarios that did have 50+ melee only opponents vs 2 melee characters. Based on astral quests or the like where the opponents did not have the brains or weapons to do anything but melee until they all were dead.

This was SR3, and combat pool dwindled so the characters actually did have to soak some hits here and there.
Based on some of the previous comments in this thread that would have never been the case. Being able to burn enough IPs to cover 25+ attackers each.


I can't comment on Rotbart and Fuches latest comments though. As I dont have information on Ripsote or Finish moves. Multiple interrupts, even as few as 3 seems a bit much imo.

So in practical terms using your ruling, and assuming an adept with 2 IP, the sequence of events would be:

Adept loses initiative and interrupts to perform a Full Defense (or gains initiative and declares a Full Defense), thus using IP number one.
Adept is attacked, successfully parries, performs Riposte (thus using IP number two) and then can't perform Finishing Move (as that would be IP number 3 and the Adept hasn't got that many)

Does that make sense?

Or are you saying that he can Riposte and use Finishing Move as they are separate interrupt actions, he just can't use them several times per turn? That could still lead to him spending at least 1 turn inactive as he has 'borrowed' IP from his next combat turn.

I'd rather live with the potential of multi combos than penalise low IP characters from using manuevers.

I think it's "you can't use the same interrupt action more than once per pass".

That interpretation does give me an idea.

I havn't thought about this for more than 30 seconds, but it seems viable:

Use Fuchs idea, and let characters take (interrupt) maneuvers more than once. If someone wanted to make a character from some Capcom fighter game, who could pull off a three or four hit combo (and then had to stare blankly during IP 2 and 3) just ask him to take the maneuver additional times for each successive use of it he would like to be able to get in a round.

There was a question about what was the definition of "next available action". Think it actually defines it by saying the next action in this combat turn or first action in the next which ever would be your following action. It states "next available" due to fact your next action could be in another combat turn.