ArkonC, you've certainly convinced me to stop perpetuating the "infinite actions" falsehood in my posts.

And I do agree with you, it seems that the issue at hand for most, isn't the multiple interrupts, its the multiple interrupts coupled with a player that has to borrow actions that are "too far" in the future. And too far has been voiced anywhere from, next combat turn, to 15+ seconds.

I'm surprised I didn't get more feedback on my "winded" description for why such a character would be unable to perform simple/complex actions until he recovered. Something along the lines of due to the stress and exertion used to execute those maneuvers, the character is winded/etc and unable to perform any complex (or simple) actions until he recovers (which at most, is likely to be 15-30 seconds).

I've heard it before, and said back then that "winded" is more related by fatigue damage. And no-where does it describe why the character is unable to act, just that he borrowed an action. Its completely writing something in that isn't anywhere even remotely mentioned. It's fluff house-rule explanation.

It isn't a house-rule. Its fluff description for why the character isn't able to take actions that hes already borrowed.

And yet this supposedly 'winded' guy can still move normally, and even run if he so chooses. As a fluff explanation, it doesn't fit quite well enough for me.

I really shouldn't be entering into the insanity of this long held debate, but I was just reading through Street Magic and found an interesting passage under Reflecting on page 61.

"Regardless of success, attempting to reflect an incoming
spell uses up the character’s next available action as if she had
used full defense as an interrupt action in normal combat (see
p. 151, SR4)—if the character has already used her next available
action, she cannot reflect."

This in no way is proof one way or another about the idea of borrowing interrupts with combat maneuvers, but it is interesting as the only place I recall that actually explicitly limits borrowing. You have one next action. If you borrowed it to full defend, you can't borrow it to reflect spells.

Make of it what you will and don't kill the messenger who is not taking sides on this issue at all.

Yes, that is interesting... Suggesting that the devs intended for us to be able to borrow one action into the future, regardless of how many IPs you have, but only one? But that doesn't make all that much sense with manuevers, since some of them sorta seem designed to stack on each other. Either way, we don't know what they hell they were thinking, just what they wrote, which is just a little contradictory

Strictly speaking, the only two maneuvers that are explicitly stated as being suggested linked are set up and finishing move. In the context of borrowing one action, this would make finishing move something you _only_ do as a truly finishing attack because you won't be able to defend after it til your next phase.

In that context, using Set Up as your attack then interrupting to add those set up dice to your Finishing Move improves your chances of dropping your opponent and leaving you less threatened. But if it doesn't work, then you're left over extended and can't fully defend. Which I think actually sounds realistic.

Similarly, riposte is left as a thing you only do if you expect to take out your opponent, because it's going to eat your next action and prevent you from defending fully after the attack.

The question that comes out then is if you aren't using Fortune's rule that you can't riposte from a Full Parry, and you trigger a riposte from Full Parry, does it stop the full parry, leaving you open to attack til after your borrowed action, or does it stay and just keep taking -1 for each attack until you can trigger another action? If being fair, I'd probably expect that Riposting removes full parry and leaves the user open to attack.

Yeah, that's how I see it too. You're not on full defense anymore if you attack. Full Defense is effective until your next action. Riposte borrows your next action and allows you to take it earlier than you normally would. But it is another action. And it is not Full Defense. Therefore, I think Riposte nullifies the Full Defense you had in your previous action.

Well, I would see that remark more as them stating this is a special case for reflect, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put rules for Arsenal MA maneuvers under Reflect in Street Magic...

Just a thought...

True, but this could be taken as the clearest definition of 'Next Available Action' across the different rulebooks. The wording under reflect seems to heavily imply that (despite the fact it is not the common English usage of the term) within SR4 'Next Available Action' actually means 'Next Action, if Available'.

So the argument could be made that wherever the term 'Next Available Action' is used in the rules, the devs actually meant 'Next Action, if Available'. Obviously this means:

1. Riposte can only be used during a normal action Full Defense, not during an interrupt action Full Defense.
2. Riposte cannot be combined with Finishing Move.
3. Finishing Move has a definite limit of one triggered bonus attack, and cannot be stacked.

So under this interpretation, Mr 1IP can trigger an interrupt Full Defense after his Action Phase in turn 1, but then renders his Action Phase in turn 2 'unavailable'. As such, he cannot perform any further interrupt actions until he reaches that Action Phase (at which time his Action Phase in turn 3 becomes available). This allows him to continuously trigger interrupt Full Defenses if necessary, but does not allow him to Riposte or trigger any other offensive actions.

The interpretation lessens the utility of Riposte, and means that the parry master takes a lot longer to disable multiple attackers.

Until the Devs either FAQ or Errata this issue, I'm probably going to continue to use my interpretation of Next Available Action (i.e. borrow more than one Action Phase into the future) - but I can certainly see why RAW could be interpreted that you can only borrow one Action Phase into the future.

I disagree. I think its evidence that shows that they did in fact meant, the next available action, and not next action, if available. Reflect references full defense, and then goes on to differentiate the way reflect works from full defense. Which would mean reflect is the only one limited because only it has the text limiting it.

This is how I see it, but I can understand people seeing it "that other way"...
It could be indicating an exception...
It could be the only one that is clarified...
It doesn't really change anything to the discussion at hand, as it offers no proof either way...
At least we won't be having a thread on infinite reflects...

Thanks, Sambranox for that excerpt. While I am not naive enough to think this will change the minds of the opposing camp, it certainly reinforces my own thoughts of handling these interrupt actions as my table. It also seems to explain the wording in the example of 1 IP guy being able to use his first action from his next combat turn.

To me, it reinforces the idea that there is only one, next available action. You can use it once, basically allowing two action in one pass, but then foregoing your next pass altogether.

I was thinking about a 4IP strategy yesterday, which would be really good against a 2IP (or less) guy. The 4IP attacks first. As the 2IP guy attacks, the 4IP guy uses an interrupt and goes full defense, using his second IP. We move to the second IP. 4IP guy has interrupted, so has no action until the third pass, but is still in full defense. 2IP guy attacks again. Now we are in the third pass and 4IP guy comes out of full defense and attacks. Now, if anyone else was attacking 4IP guy, he could do another interrupt to full defense, using up his fourth pass' action. But in this case, he just attack the 2IP guy another time.

Again, don't think this will be changing any minds in the other camp, but it certainly reinforces the way I see all of this stuff working.

Reflect is added to the list of interrupts... And that is where the definition is.

Considering that:
-- The section on Full Defense as an Interrupt, has nothing for an explanation
-- The section on Full Defense as a Complex Action, describes using the first action of your next combat turn when you are unable to act during the pass
-- Reflect says you can't borrow an action if you have done so already
-- Arsenal assumes we learned what "Next Available Action" meant from the first book.

So putting all these spots together we have our definition. I can't believe none of us ever thought to look in spell descriptions for an explanation of standard combat maneuvers. How stupid of us.

Thank you Sombranox, I think you found the settling argument.

Ah, but the key phrase here is:



As Arsenal was not out at the time, the reference to Full Defense (at the time the only other 'interrupt' action in the game) appears to be there to indicate that the next available action referred to in Street Magic is the same as the next available action referred to in the Full Defense rules.

That said, you are quite right - it is still open to interpretation as to whether the sentence is just an explicit limitation on Reflecting (i.e. a character could still use their next available action for Full Defense and then use their 'next' next available action to Riposte, they just can't use that 'next' next available action to Reflect) or a confirmation that your next available action is made 'unavailable' by performing a Full Defense interrupt, and as such you cannot use any abilities that require your next available action (like Riposte or Reflect).

And of course, it begs the question as to whether the limitation is both ways, i.e. if you have used your next available action to Reflect, can you then interrupt a Full Defense?

It doesn't kill the debate, but previously the commonly understood English interpretation leant towards allowing multiple next available actions, whereas the above quoted sentence could indicate a sway back towards only one interrupt at a time.

I think Reflect shows either that the devs don't agree, or one of them at least doesn't understand what the others meant with full defense. We shouldn't be looking for elephants in mouseholes. If the devs wanted to fix/clarify interrupts, a random initiate power in SM was the wrong place to do it. As far as I'm concerned, Reflect is either a mistake or it only applies to Reflect. I'm certainly not going to say that it takes precedence over the actual full defense rules just by referencing them. It does lend support to the one action in the future idea, but it really doesn't prove anything.

Sounds like a topic for the next Q&A, unless a dev takes pity and posts here.

I'll agree that the reflect rules lean towards at least that Dev intending for one borrowed action. Either he was the black sheep, or everyone else just thought it was too obvious.

Definitely a FAQ/errata issue now.

I think he was the one person who realized that the wording was going to be confusing and lead to mass debates on what was meant. Or maybe they had to explain it to him enough times, that he thought he should explain it out to readers as well.

Should give whoever wrote that chapter a prize. At least he's clear on what he meant.

Or, it shows that the devs did agree and what seemed obvious to them was not specified clearly enough in the books...and there is a limit to interrupts.

While I agree we shouldn't be looking for elephants in mouseholes, we also shouldn't be assuming any of us on the "outside" is correctly interpreting the RAW and the an inconsistency with "our" understanding in the books must be a mistake.

This doesn't prove anything, mind you, but it does lend itself to the side of the argument that there is more of a limitation to interrupts than simply defense modifiers on a dice pool...

I have to second Fuchs sentiment. And if I was part of the development team and had the answer, I wouldn't be waiting to clarify it. Why's it so hard to get a consensus (assuming there actually is one in the dev camp) and just let us know? That's kinda the HUGE benefit of having online forums, immediate feedback. While I didn't play a whole lot of Hero System, the few months I did play, were enhanced immensely simply because the forum support and immediate answers given by the developer. He wrote the rules, he knew the answers and when someone asked for clarification, he gave it to them and settled/ended all debate. And by the size and complexity of that system, SR4 should be a piece of cake to address (by devs).

I think the devs should set up a red phone that rings and connects them to the President whenever a Dumpshock thread reaches 10 pages. Then the President would know the answer to our Qs and could do a TV address to the nation to share the newly-acquired wisdom...

Or...

Whenever the devs see a rules discussion thread that reaches 5 pages, they could check it out before we all borrow an infinite number of future actions and then get stuck winded for the next twenty years. Anyways, just a thought.

[EDIT: Is buying a Shadowrun PDF a Complex Action? I still love the game.]

Well, it sure isn't a Free Action. /duck

This exact discussion came up during our last game, so I was hoping there would be a definitive answer here...
So not seeing one I'll add (perhaps to the confusion) to the discussion.

The only description of an Interrupt Action that I can see is that whatever rule it is referencing, it "uses up the character's next available action."

Also I haven't found any indication that the martial arts maneuvers are any kind of action, whether free simple or complex.

Also there is no description of what "next available action" means.

Also I find the definition of Delayed Actions (pg 134) interesting, at the end of it it says "A character can also delay his action until the next Initiative Pass. If he had an action in that Initiative Pass, then he automatically loses it (in place of the delayed action-you only get one action per pass).

Lastly, the description of Full Defense on page 138 seems to point to two rule mechanics. The first part being its use as an Interrupt Action, but the second part which reads "Characters may go on full defense even if they don't have an action that pass, sacrificing their first action of the next Combat Turn instead" seems to describe a totally different mechanic, similar but not an Interrupt Action.

From the above (but not limited to) observations, I interpret "next available action" as Action Phase. Also, there cannot be more than one Action Phase worth of actions (two simple or one complex, and one free) performed in one initiative pass. Lastly Martial Arts Maneuvers are just extra things that you can do and they do not count as any type of action, accept that it uses up the character's next Action Phase.

So, to answer the OP's question (back on page one, phew): If you have already performed your actions for that Initiative Pass, you cannot perform another action, even if it is an interrupt. So you couldn't attack in melee, and later in the same Initiative Pass go full defense as this gives you more than one action per initiative pass (which you cannot do).

However, you can go on full defense in an Initiative Pass in which you have no Action Phase or of course before your Action Phase in an Initiative Pass in which you have one.

Also if you perform an Interrupt Action, you lose your next Action Phase (as if you didn't even have one): therefore no free action, resetting of defense pool modifiers, etc.

Personally I'm not going to allow the borrowing of an Action Phase if it is already used, as this is what the description of the Reflect rule imply.

The Monk

According to today's Q&A chat, you only have a certain amount of actions available per combat turn. Using an interrupt like full defense uses up one of those actions. You cannot borrow actions from the next combat turn once you have used up your available actions in the current combat turn.
Further, a 1 IP character will have to use Edge to get another IP pass if he wants to use "Finishing move". Such a use of edge has to be annouced ahead as well, it cannot be announced at the time the interrupt is taken.

as in: edge must be declared and spent when rolling for initiative at the start of the combat turn?

That's how I read it.

Did anyone ask if Riposte can be triggered while using Full Defense?

Sure. Why not?

Because using Full Defense is actively paying complete attention to defense, normally at the cost of any other (ie. offensive) actions. If the combination is allowed, pretty much everyone that possibly can will grab Riposte as soon as possible (if not at chargen itself) and then just stay on constant Full Defense.

That sucks! I don't like it! It is inane! It's way too powerful! And it won't work that way in my games!

It's pretty common in fencing, actually. And if you act before your opponent, you can /force/ them on the defensive. Of course, they can riposte you and then you can riposte them, etc., but eventually one of you will run out of actions - and considering that you're forcing the defender to take /two/ actions (Interrupt: Full Defense followed by Interrupt: Riposte attack) for your one, odds are actually in favor of the offensive opponent, all else being equal.

Shrug. I've done a little fencing, and I consider that a normal use of Defense. To me, Full Defense is just that ... doing everything in your power to avoid getting hit to the exclusion of everything else. It is a different thing to the normal back-and-forth, thrust-and-parry of fencing.

So, in other words, the only Maneuver that can borrow an Action from the following turn is Full Defense (and it's technically not a Maneuver, but uses the same basic mechanics). Is that about right?

No idea. Technically, they said you cannot borrow from the next combat turn. However, I think Full defense lasts until your next action, so the effect could carry over into the next combat turn.

Bah. This is why I prefer my Action Point system.

*cradles his PipBoy lovingly*

Full Defense specifically outlines how you can 'borrow' an Action from the next turn if you have none available in the current turn. But as I said, it is technically not a Maneuver.

In any case, they clearly stated the "old master borrowing 96 actions" is not possible.

So let me get this straight.

-An "interrupt action" basically burns your next action in your next action phase
-Maneuvers like Riposte and Finishing blow are both interrupts
-It is impossible to burn actions from the following combat turn, unless you are using the FULL DEFENSE option

THEREFORE

-It's impossible for any character with just a single initiative pass to ever perform maneuvers like Riposte or Finishing Move, correct?

I hope I'm wrong about this. Can someone please clarify?

According to what Fuchs reported from the chat, what you just wrote is correct, with the exception that if a 1 IP character uses Edge to gain an extra pass in the current turn, then he or she can use Riposte or Finishing Move.

Edit: The 1 IP character can also use these maneuvers if he or she gains more IPs from any other method, such as magic or drugs.

I'm against multiple IP's, but that sounds broken. You shouldn't have to be lucky to Riposte.

I'll continue with 1 action ahead for my games.

Well, I guess my take on it was totally and completely wrong...
In fact, pretty much everyone was wrong, by the looks of it...
I suspect my group will stick to our previous interpretation of the rules and call it a house rule though...
At least it settles the discussion finally...
Although in a very unsatisfying way IMO...

I'll just keep doing what we did so far - which is, not using the MA rules and all the interrupt stuff.

You have got to be kidding me. Am I the only one who thinks maneuvers that can ONLY be utilized by cybernetically/magically/chemically enhanced individuals are beyond retarded? The Dev's actually said that? That's batshit crazy.

I think it would make more sense to put a cap on the number of "interrupt actions" available per combat turn, after you've used up the remainder of your actions. That way, the 1 IP guy can still pull off things like FINISHING MOVE, or a RIPOSTE followed by a FINISHING MOVE. Set the cap to Available Actions + TWO interrupt actions per combat turn max. That way you can't borrow infinitely from future combat rounds. The 1 IP guy can do up to three interrupts in a single turn, the 2 IP guy can do four, the 3 IP guy can do 5, and the 4 IP can do 6. That would seem to be a fairly effective house rule that doesn't end up giving a MASSIVE advantage to those with more IPs.


Example:

Bob citizen gets jumped by two knife-wielding gang punks. What the gang punks don't know is that Bob is an Arnis de Mano instructor.

GP1 (gang punk 1) wins initiative and attacks with is first action
BC (Bob Citizen) uses an interrupt (and his one available action) to declare full defense (full parry), and easily deflects the attack
BC's turn comes up, but he used his action, so he has to wait
GP2 (gang punk 2) gets his turn, and tries to skewer bob on his shiv
BC users another interrupt action (one of the only two he has left) and performs an Arnisdor Disarm, doing damage to the punk and...
Since he did damage with a disarm, he can use his final interrupt to perform a finishing move on the punk.

Hehe...I thought interrupts being restricted to the current combat turn, made the most sense. Allowing the 4IP dude to act then interrupt 3 times and a 1 IP guy having to choose to wait then interrupt, or act now and boost his IPs later aligned with my understanding of the intent. I'm glad the Devs didn't screw up my logic on the topic:)

In a way it makes sense that only multiple IP people can use maneuvers like Finishing Move. After all, Finishing move lets you effectively do two strikes in the same time as one. That should take twice as long, unless you're twice as fast. And it's not like only people pumped up with cyber/drugs/magic can do it, even the unluckiest person in the world can still put in an Edge to do a Finishing Move. I'm not sure how canon it is, but I'd allow someone to decide to burn edge for another IP after making the attack for finishing move, or after defending the attack for riposte, i.e. gain another action and immediately use it on an interrupt.

There is definitely some satisfaction to eliminating the un-realism of someone interrupting 12 times and being unable to act for a whole minute after a flurry of action. As the devs have clarified it, nobody stands around with hands in pockets for longer than one turn.

I think limiting borrowing to the current Combat Turn also makes it more clear that whenever you take another action, whether it's an interrupt or not, your full defense ends. If you full defense and then Riposte, your full defense is over because you have acted by Riposting. But you should still get the full defense bonus, since you don't take any action until after you successfully defend the attack. This means that two handed mastery is pretty amazing because you can full defense with one weapon for free, and then riposte anyone who attacks you, sort of win-win. I think seeing sammies with Smartguns and katanas, like they always had in the art and never in actual gameplay, will be sweet.

Also, defense penalties reset each time you act, right? This means that high IP people will be much less affected by defense penalties. A 1 IP person might defend 5 attacks in a turn, and take a -4 on the last one, no matter when other people attack during the turn. But a 4 IP person could full defense for the entire turn by taking 4 full defenses, but each full defense is an action, and each action resets the penalty. So dodgers with pumped IPs get even more powerful.

Bah! I still think they should be unlimited ...

... except, of course for finishing Move.

... and no offensive Maneuvers triggered off Full Defense.

... and no Two Weapon Style for Unarmed Combat.

I still don't know what anyone finds complicated about two weapon style requiring two weapons, and not working when one fights using the "unarmed," (i.e. of arms, having none, thus being weaponless, having not the requisite 2 weapons, or even a single weapon, but in fact 0 weapons, a complete lack of weapons, weapons being somewhere, but not in your hands, where you can use them to fight) skill.

We've been through this though. It is because things like Hardliner Gloves are considered, or at least listed as 'weapons', and thus the wording of the Maneuver is such that it can be read to include their use.

I still don't get your complaints about Riposting off of Full Defense. Although not bad, it is not that powerful, and with any 'reasonable' limit on how many actions you can borrow, will not be a balance issue at all. It is also far from the most powerful Martial Arts combination. My personal favorite, because it is my preferred combat style in RL, is also easily the most powerful I have seen used in Shadowrun. Arnis De Mano + Disarm maneuver. Gets even worse when you add in Two-Weapon Style. You get free damage & a disarm every time you parry an attack, without using an interrupt - don't even need to make an attack on them, as you do with Riposte.

You're right. If Full Defense is considered to be cancelled as soon as the Riposte is performed, then it isn't as bad as I first thought. I still don't like the whole 'permanent Full Defense' offered by the Two Weapon Style Maneuver though.