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.

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?

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 .

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 .

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.



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.

That sounds about right. Penalizes G1 for not being more conservative and going on Full Defense. Because he didnt and decided to attack instead, S1 (or any multi IP character) will make meat of him. This to me is balance.

So, Balance to you is that multiple IP characters always steam-roll less IP characters regardless? Low IP characters need to be able to use that interrupt to go on full defense in order to have a remote chance of surviving against multiple IP characters.

If you want more lethal, then thats fine, say so, but don't claim that its balanced.

How is lethal unbalanced? I fail to understand this. Shadowrun is always lethal, it is just equally lethal. That is the inherent point. They can still spend edge for another IP if they want, or take drugs. This means that even goons have access to multiple IPs. I am merely saying that you should have to make a choice during you turn as to whether you want to attack of defend. If you choose to attack you may leave yourself a bit open. That is just the reality of the game.

It is not equally lethal. You're removing the ability to interrupt as a defense (by not allowing someone to use their next IP for full defense if they've acted this turn). Causing more lethality. It tips the balance even more toward those with 3-4 IPs, while hurting those with 1-2 IPs.

I understand that you say you should have to choose attack or defend. My point is that by forcing that choice (and basing it on IPs and if you've acted already), characters cannot use full defense if they are attacked before their AP of the IP (One point to having initiative enhancers). Now, they cannot spend a future action to use full defense after they've attacked either (Another point to multiple IP holders, since they can sacrifice their first IP or two to defense, then attack in the later two when the other person is unable to use full defense by your ruling). This unbalances the combat in favor of those with more IPs even moreso than the base RAW rules do.

Tarantula is right. There are already threads on here talking about nerfing init pases because they're so amazingly powerful. Having 1 pass gimps you horribly. Why change the rules to send the 1 IP people from gimped all the way down to instant death? House rules should have a rational reason behind them. "Just because it feels wrong" is really not a good basis for changing the interrupt rules.

Shouldn't a 1 IP person be screwed every which way when facing a 4 IP person?

All of these discussions come down to some people wanting a low IP to be safe if they choose to go full defense against a high-IP person. And the same group also wants to be able to build the defensive reactive master that can take on fleets of mooks.

The other group (which I am a part of) thinks that there should be no way a single IP guy is going to survive a 4 IP guy...that's just the inherent benefit of being fast and accurate. Same with the defensive master...he might be a little better at fighting against 2 or 3 mooks but put him against 10 to 1 odds, and everyone is trouble...

Next thing I know, people will want to make Logic 1 people smarter, Strength 1 people stronger...all so they are not as gimped as a Logic/Strength 6 player...

1 IP on full defense is hardly "safe" from the 4 IP character. They are already going to lose. These house rules just makes this losing even more assured. It isn't needed, because the 1IP character WILL already lose.

Yes. The thing is, they already are. You are talking about nerfing the nerfiest thing that ever nerft. W T F. Usually you need to nerf powerful things because they break the game, but you want to nerf a weak thing because it doesn't not break the game enough... Whatever

See, now you're just putting words in people's mouth...
No one ever said 1IP people should be safe from 4IP people if they go full defense...
A lot of people are just saying they should at least have a chance, if you want to scew your game so that the only important thing in combat is IPs, then so be it, but quite frankly, I don't think I'd want to be in a game that makes IPs that important...
Using theoretical examples to prove something is broken (borrowing infinite actions) doesn't prove anything...
Making non combat characters completely worthless in combat doesn't make the game any more fun...

just 2 more of my ...

EDIT: And on that last point, you know what the downside is of having STR 1? It's having STR 1. No need to start having them make rolls to get up from a chair or pick up a pen. That's just pointless punishment...

Fair enough...and I apologize, I was generalizing way too much in my comments.

I think in these sorts of situations (1IP guy v. 4IP guy), the assumption is the 4IP is going first in the pass and the intention is to let the 1IP guy interrupt that action to go full defense. The examples I normally see is the 1IP guy going first in the pass AND then interrupting the "slower" 4IP guy's action to go full defense. And in this case, that 1IP guy gets to borrow one action from a combat turn that may not even exist...and that is because the next initiative hasn't even been rolled. I think it would be more plausible to allow the 1IP guy to spend a point of EDGE to get a second IP and then borrow that for his full defense, but I don't see that included as an option in these discussions.

I don't have the same opinion that having IPs being important in combat screws the game. You still have to do something with those IPs, so it still comes down to skills, but more importantly, cover, LOS and environmental conditions. Take a look at any RPG ever created that allows characters to act multiple times in a "combat turn". More actions means better results.

While I did put words in mouths on 1IP being safe from 4IP guy, the fact of the matter is, people are still trying to give the low IP guys an extra safety to act more than they should and let them be an idiot in combat by shooting first before making sure they really are safe. If I had a 1IP player (which again, is not too common unless the whole campaign is tailored) that happened to roll high enough to act first, and they decided to just stand there and open fire, realizing that there are three more passes to go before they get another action...I don't know, is it wrong of me to shake my head and laugh at the table? I would hope the player would know the outcome ahead of time.

And why the hell don't people with 1IP use their edge in combat so they are not a 1IP guy??? That seems like the easiest way to give the low IP guys a chance...use your damn edge:)

I don't see how allowing a character to take an interrupt action to forfeit his next action allows a 1IP character to "be an idiot in combat" and live. As others have said, the character is still screwed. Here's what'll happen (using the S1 and G1 examples as before):

Turn 1
IP1
G1 (who has 1 IP) has a higher initiative score attacks S1.
S1 (who has 3 IPs) attacks G1. G1 goes on full defense.

IP2
G1 moves to a position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

IP3
G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

Turn 2
IP1
G1 wins initiative again, but because he used full defense last time, he can only move and take a free action. G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

IP2
G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

IP3
G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

Repeat these 2 combat turns, or a slight variation thereof.

In short, the higher IP character still slaughters the lower IP character, no matter what. In this example, S1 gets 6 IPs to attack compared to G1's 1 IP to attack. The difference using the rule in this manner is that at least G1 is able to get off a shot once in a long while, meaning that he's not *completely* helpless.

The above example gets even worse if S1 manages to knock down G1, since G1 requires a simple action to stand up, which he won't be able to do until Turn 3. In the meantime, his movement is severely hampered, if the GM allows him to crawl at all. The book doesn't give a rule for crawling, so that's subjective.



Assuming you refresh Edge at the book's suggested rate, a such a character would be out of Edge for the entire adventure after one or two combats, unless the character manages to do something that the GM feels earns him back a point. Even spending Edge, in the above example of S1 with 3 IPs and G1 with 1 IP, S1 will still always (and infinitely) have the advantage over G1. Even if S1 only had 2 IPs, he's still have the advantage because his 2 IPs are forever, allowing him to spend his Edge on other tests to help him hurt G1 or avoid injury himself.

The bottom line that Larme, Tarantula, and ArkonC are saying: 1 IP characters are already screwed. Don't screw them over any more.

Ranger, in your latest example...I see two issues. 1) Why the hell would G1 attack first? He knows he has 1 IP. Does he know that S1 has more than that? Is G1 at range using a sniper rifle? I just think that anyone playing G1, GM included, would have little to no reason to attack first unless he is just being sacrificed or he has some sort of assurance that his first attack is going to kill or seriously affect S1's next actions.

2) What seems to be lacking here are relative dice pools, including environment/cover mods. If G1 is a 130lb human and S1 is a 400lb troll with obvious cyberware, again, is G1 going to waste a single pass on shooting the troll? Wouldn't it be smarter to run for cover or go on full defense right from the start and hope to escape?

This is what I was referring my "idiot" observation towards. Knowing you have one pass, why would you blow it for two bursts? If everything is equal in the example, dice pools and all, then its a no-win situation anyways with lower IP.

Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, but I'd think if I had a character with 1IP facing a combat scenario, I'm thinking really hard on what I am going to do with my single pass.

As to your Edge comments...I'd rather blow my Edge now and survive this one combat, then worry about what I might use my extra dice for later in the adventure (which I would likely be dead for anyways).

I understand what everyone is saying here, but trying to give a 1IP character some sort of extended usefulness in combat just doesn't make a lot of sense. If I made a character like this, and faced combat, I'd either have backup (as in my other runners), drones (which have multiple IPs) or be hiding and trying to support my team via the matrix. I don't think you're going to salvage a 1IP combat character, not matter how you try to interpret the rules (for or against).

I just see no logic to your position. You agree they suck, and their suckiness is your justification to make them worse. Or maybe you just don't have a justification, and are nerfing something just because you don't quite like it. Either way, it's not a good basis for altering the rules. Alter the rules to fix them, not for no reason at all. Otherwise, your players are going to have to read the BBB, the BBB's errata, the BBB's FAQ, and your own BBB v2.0 full of house rules that you really don't need and don't really help the game.

Your comments here prove exactly why someone with 1 IP doesn't need to be gimped any more than he already is, because you're basically telling me that G1 in the example is dead anyway.

But still, to answer your #1, G1 will attack because with the rules as some of us interpret it, G1 still has the chance to declare an interrupt action to take a full defense if he's attacked later. This also might be G1's only chance to get in some kind of attack before he's slaughtered. Something is better than nothing.

Clearly, I simplified the example. I'm assuming all else is equal. Obviously, we can assume all else is not equal. Yeah, we can say that G1 has a sniper rifle, is hiding 1000 meters away with an imaging scope and smartlink, and S1 has only a knife standing in the open and is surprised. But, that's not the point of this discussion.



Okay, then change my example to say that after G1 takes his shots, he uses his free action to run to cover. That's fine. Assuming the firefight continues, S1 will still almost always win, all else being equal (again).



Not sure what to say other than to repeat what's been said about not gimping already gimped characters. You're basically saying that since the character is screwed, it doesn't matter how much more you screw over the character by interpreting the rules in a fashion that hinder him even more. Basically, you're saying it's okay to do that.

I don't believe the rule is intended to be used in that fashion. That is, nathanross' #4. So, that's why I say don't change a rule as written (in my opinion) in a way that makes it even tougher for someone with fewer IPs.

I suppose that is the disconnect...because I think we are both thinking we are interpreting RAW correctly. Honestly, I am not "trying" to gimp the 1IP guy more...its just so happens that in my interpretation of "next available action" and the use of interrupts, that a 1IP is less effective than if I allowed him to borrow actions from a combat turn that has yet to be rolled.

If you look at two 4IP guys, under my same interpretation, then there really isn't a problem.

Note that my interpretation does differ from nathanross' #4. He initially stated he wouldn't allow borrowing of an action if the player had already acted in the pass. I do allow borrowing of an action, but it comes from within the same combat turn. You can borrow a future pass from another IP, but not if it crosses into a new (and unrolled) combat turn.

While we are focusing on the 1IP guy for these examples, note that I look at my interpretation across the board. And my solution to the 1IP guy is simply to use a point of edge if they've already acted, interrupt to full defense and they'll be in full defense until their next action (which will be IP 1 of the next combat turn, if they are lucky enough to survive).

"Next available action" is clear and unlimiting. You are arbitrarily changing it to "next available action of this combat turn". If thats how you want it to be, fine, but it is not RAW.

But it is my interpretation of RAW, just like you are saying that "next available action" is clear and unlimiting is your interpretation. I just don't the game devs intended allowing an infinite amount of next available actions be used in the current pass.

If it makes this discussion easier to swallow, then yeah, call my interpretation a house rule and yours RAW, it makes me no difference.

As to the OP, the answer you are looking for is no. There is no consensus on how interrupt actions are to be used.

I think there's a consensus. The majority believe that there is no limit placed on interrupts. It's just a vocal minority who disagree. They disagree based mostly on the potential for abuse using maneuvers, but that potential is so theoretical and negligible that it really shouldn't make the difference.

I'm part of the "vocal minority", mainly because the only arguments against the abuse is "don't ever give the character the chance to use that". Which is like saying run all the missions in a background 6, so the mage can never use his magic. Not allowing someone to play their character is not what I see as a way of handling the rules. But I've argued this so many times, and noone ever seems to get it. But I'm very happy to see some others carrying the torch this time

Anyways as to the use of interrupts... Your 1 IP person is screwed in that he is getting a -1 to his defense every time the 4 IP person is attacking him.

C1--------------------------------------------

G1: Attacks + Moving
S1: Attacks (G1 Interrupts for Full Defense, -1 if shooting SA)

G1: Moving still
S1: Attacks (-1 DP, -3 if shooting SA)

G1: Moving Still
S1: Attacks (-2 DP, -5 if shooting SA)

G1: Moving still
S1 Attacks (-3 DP, -7 if shooting SA)

C2--------------------------------------------Explain this someone...

G1: Free Action (Still in Full Defense?, still has -3/-7 defense?)
S1: Attacks

.
.
.

Its when that next action that G1 cannot use, what happens? Is he still in Full Defense until he can actually act? Does his defense modifiers reset? There is no explanation as to how this is handled. I like to interpret that he is still in Full Defense, and he still has his -3/-7 defense modifier. If he chooses to interrupt again at this point to go on Full Defense (using his next action, thusly keeping him doing nothing but running for 4 more passes after this turn) it will reset his Defense pool.

As to why does G1 attack first when he is clearly screwed... Because if I'm facing that I'm gonna pray that I can take down the sammy in a spray of lead or a well placed grenade before he can actually get to me. I think if he acted first, I'd still soak the first shot, attack, and then go on full defense. When facing a combat monster, running only guarantees your going to die, unless he's a non-lethal sammy that will just watch you run off (and then you can return with friends, and kill him)

For your interpretation to be correct, the RAW would need to specify, "the next available action in the combat turn" or whatever. Without that text, your interpretation is adding information that is not present in the RAW.


I agree, the defense pool would not reset unless he interrupted with another Full Defense.

You aren't in the minority, you are allowing the ganger to go on full defense from a pass in a future combat turn. The "vocal minority" believes that you can only borrow from multiple initiative passes that you have within a single combat turn.

(Which, with their interpretation, why happens when its IP 4 and two sammies are duking it out. One attacks, and the other wants to go on full defense?

I wasn't even going into the multiple initiatives thing, and whether it has to be from this turn. Limiting to within a combat turn breaks continuity for me, minus the initiative roll, there should be no break between pass 4 of this turn and pass 1 of the next. For those who want multiple interrupts I have suggested before "you can borrow up to 1 combat turn ahead". This means if its pass 3 of turn 1, you can borrow up to pass 3 of turn 2. You are limited by the number of IP's your character actually has still.

I won't explain it any more than this on here (instead read it Here), since I've done it a multitude of times before. And all those who argue for the mutiple interrupts have heard enough from me on the other topics that have come up.

Night, yours is a good middleground. And honestly, unless you're playing a riposting finishing move master who is fighting of a swarm of mooks, the likelihood of a player actually hitting your limit is slim.

No... The rules give us clear indication that background count 6 everywhere is not appropriate. If you did that to prevent a mage from using magic, you'd be violating the RAW. But how about the riposte master? He's only "broken" if 10-20 people all try to attack him at once, and don't ever give up even after he blocks and beats down each one in turn. There is no RAW which says that if someone has that build, NPCs must suddenly become retarded, or he suddenly becomes a magnet for enemies who fight primarily with melee combat. You are not violating canon if most badguys in the year 2070 try to shoot you and don't bother punching. You are not violating the RAW if 3-4 NPCs attack the riposte master, then stop coming because it's clear he's too good in melee combat. The GM must affirmatively create an absurd, stupid, unrealistic situation where there are lots of NPCs with no brains and only melee weapons in order for interrupt actions to be "broken." This isn't a case of "don't let him use his character," this is a case of "his character is not USEFUL in a realistic situation." If the character is not useful in a realistic situation, there is no need to prevent him from using it. Useless things are notoriously hard to use, right?

Its not a consensus if there isn't an agreement. And where are you getting that the "majority" believes one thing or another? I've seen about an equal amount of arguments between both sides...anyways...

I'm just voicing my opinion so others that read the RAW and don't know how to interpret it have options. Not everyone is going to like unlimited actions being borrowed, just like not everyone is going to like defining a limit (whether it is per pass, per combat turn or based on your IPs). I think you're a big proponent of reading RAW using common sense, Larme. I feel that I am doing exactly the same thing, using common sense to interpret the intent of RAW.

This is just another one of those grey areas (similar to matrix actions not using an attribute, the debate with how many AR actions can be done in a turn, etc) that have a couple different workable solutions, based on common sense, developers intent and how things play at the table.

That's why I said I think there's a consensus. That's my sense of it. Feel free to disagree. Obviously not everyone agrees, but I'm not going to argue whether that fits the definition of "consensus" or not, I absolutely hate semantics. It doesn't matter what words you use, I think most people would say that RAW does not place a limit on interrupts.

I definitely agree that RAW should be read with common sense. If there are multiple interpretations, and one thing is utterly insane, pick the sane one every time. But that's not what we have here. Common sense does not tell us "unlimited interrupts is obviously contrary to common sense." As we've said, the only situations where you could actually get a huge number of interrupts are in really weird and unrealistic situations that will never come up. You're not talking about common sense, you're talking about personal preference. Unlimited interrupts are not to your liking. You don't need an objective reason to dislike something, you can go ahead and change it however you want. I don't mind. But you're actually reading new words into RAW not because the text says something crazy, but because it says something you don't quite like. I think that limiting finishing moves to one is an example of reading words into RAW based on common sense. It's totally stupid to think the rules are supposed to allow ten thousand billion attacks in one instant, therefore common sense tells us that you only get one finishing move. But it's not totally stupid to let people borrow lots of actions in general, because honestly the situations where you could borrow a ridiculous number have probably never happened in any game of SR4 to date, and never will, because they are so unrealistic. So I don't think you can claim common sense on this one.