Should Flurry be a national rule or a local rule?

Should Flurry exist at the standardized level or the LCO level?


  • Total voters
    92

Avaran

Baron
Perhaps the packet could benefit from errata then? It would appear people who actually tried it and people who are vehemently against it have vastly different understanding of the rule.
This is because we really only have what is written in the rule to go by.

This is literally all we have:

For this Playtest, we’re asking all Playtesters to use a Flurry rule for all attacks (weapon and packet both). This is intended as a constant change to Alliance combat in which players take no more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks) before pausing and resetting their combat stance. All players involved in a combat should adhere to this rule.
Do you understand our confusion/general distaste now? :)
 

ASFDan

Scholar
For what it's worth at this point, in our play test this weekend flurry rules surprisingly did not come up very often; there simply weren't that many situations where two people were engaged such that they became relevant.

Where it did happen the feedback was mixed, but largely it didn't seem to impact the game one way or another.
 

Cipher

Newbie
Yeah... Someone should really look into this road paved with good intentions....
 

Daimyo Shi

Newbie
I think that "those in general who argue against...." is an unfairly broad blanket statement. I am, at -best-, an average stick jock. I am, by no means, equivalent to many fighters in Seattle, and I'm against this.

I also feel it's unfair to judge people who state this will affect their level of fun as being unreasonable (to summarize your statement), as many of these fighters enjoy the speed of combat. For them, it's about reflexes and sport and skill.
Well so if Flurry was National would you leave the game? Change happen in LARPs when rules are change I played several LARPs that have changed rules many times, yes you will lose people, you can also gain people, you can also keep people that would leave because you don't change. Do you have a reason other than the game might lose people, because almost every change can make people leave the game.

I believe that the flurry rule does make combat more even by slowing down those that are more skilled at boffer combat. I think this is a bad change, since we should incentivize player skill. If a player is better than another at boffer combat, then that should be clear in the outcome.

To put this into perspective, I gain an advantage from the flurry rule since I do not use any weapons and am solely a spellcaster. I am not arguing against this for my sake, I believe that this change will make the game less fun for other players.
I am not sure I find an argument based on the concept less fun for some, when fact that fast combat does effect the fun of other people as well as they feel overwhelmed or stay away from combat classes because they aren't good enough isn't being mentioned at all.

This is because we really only have what is written in the rule to go by.

This is literally all we have:

For this Playtest, we’re asking all Playtesters to use a Flurry rule for all attacks (weapon and packet both). This is intended as a constant change to Alliance combat in which players take no more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks) before pausing and resetting their combat stance. All players involved in a combat should adhere to this rule.

Do you understand our confusion/general distaste now? :)
Actually other than the switching targets question which seems to have been brought up along the way, no I don't. I mean if you need a rule to tell you how much time is need to be taken that nitpicking.
 

ASFDan

Scholar
I mean if you need a rule to tell you how much time is need to be taken that nitpicking.
Only going to address this bit, I think the rest is being talked in circles at this point.

I'm not sure it's fair to call this nitpicking. On a local level it's very easy to come to a general consensus about how something is played; at out recent play test we were able to similarly agree on the interpretation we would all use, and went from there. On a national level, however, that sort of broad agreement is simply not possible; owners, player bases, and game cultures are simply too different to apply a nod-and-handshake understanding to a given rule, so it has to be explicitly defined.
 

Muir

Fighter
Dan, given that we've just seen a request (which is unresolved) on the marshal's board here to define which joint the necessary arc of a weapon blow should be from, I'd very much agree that clear and specific rules are a good and necessary thing on a national level.
 

Daimyo Shi

Newbie
Only going to address this bit, I think the rest is being talked in circles at this point.

I'm not sure it's fair to call this nitpicking. On a local level it's very easy to come to a general consensus about how something is played; at out recent play test we were able to similarly agree on the interpretation we would all use, and went from there. On a national level, however, that sort of broad agreement is simply not possible; owners, player bases, and game cultures are simply too different to apply a nod-and-handshake understanding to a given rule, so it has to be explicitly defined.
It really sounds like even if a number was given, you would say it would be argued endlessly, again that an arguement to prevent change and can be adapted to nearly any argument about the rules to prevent change. It is a straw dog.
 

Avaran

Baron
It really sounds like even if a number was given, you would say it would be argued endlessly
It wouldn't on my end, because then I have a codified definition of the rule that I can abide by and enforce as a Marshal, otherwise I'm just going by "feel", and that is not a good foundation to build a RULE on that everyone has to follow.

A Flame Bolt does 20 damage. Clear. Obvious. You know how it works. No discussion.

How long do I need to wait between Flurries? It needs to be defined if it is going to be a rule and not a guideline. Guidelines are optional and open to interpretation, rules should not be open to interpretation, that is why they are called "rules".

Someone who isn't ARC telling me on the forums I can reset my Flurry by switching targets doesn't make it legal, and I would call someone for a rules infraction for not allowing opponents to "reset their stance and call defenses" at the very least before starting another set of Flurry attacks because that is how it is worded/written.
 
Last edited:

Tantarus

Squire
Asking for a well defined non vague rule is not creating a straw man. Especially for a rule that is so foreign to most and ill worded and expected to be a standard across a dozen or so chapters.

As I keep pointing out, the rule as written does not even match up to how it is used in Calgary.
 

Cipher

Newbie
True. I dun' have the credentials to crayon in a better version for that, so I'll prod our chapter owner to see what can be done about fixing the lazy version of the rule. I've also requested our spar group to record a few fights so that people can see how that rule works in real world. "Real world" as opposed to "on paper" not to "in game", obviously.
 

Daimyo Shi

Newbie
It wouldn't on my end, because then I have a codified definition of the rule that I can abide by, otherwise I'm just going by "feel", and that is not a good foundation to build a RULE on that everyone has to follow.

A Flame Bolt does 20 damage. Clear. Obvious. You know how it works. No discussion.

How long do I need to wait between Flurries? It needs to be defined if it is going to be a rule and not a guideline. Guidelines are optional and open to interpretation, rules should not be open to interpretation, that is why they are called "rules".
I am not opposed to having a defined time, [I have some what of advantage in I don't really think about it as such currently, which is causing me some difficulty in understanding some of the issues being presented] I even agree that the packet may need some clearing up in that area.

Asking for a well defined non vague rule is not creating a straw man. Especially for a rule that is so foreign to most and ill worded and expected to be a standard across a dozen or so chapters.

As I keep pointing out, the rule as written does not even match up to how it is used in Calgary.
As I pointed out above in know recognize that it more instinctive for me that I thought, Understand the idea of changing targets is very much not in the wording presented in the packet, other than the case of a shield wall I can't think of a case were changing targets wouldn't take a second or two to complete and a stance change, which in my mind would follow the rules of the packet.
 

Tantarus

Squire
It is pretty easy to shift attacks between 2 adjacent targets without pausing. Stance change is not defined at all, even after repeatedly being asked for.
What constitutes a stance change?
Can I just shift my front foot?
Do I have to swap my front and back feet?
Do I have to move in a certain direction like backward?
Does strafing around a target count as a stance change?

You say "in my mind" well everyone is different. That doesn't mean much/
 

Cipher

Newbie
"Changing stance" usually entails shifting from offensive stance to balanced or defensive stance. For those people, to whom this has no meaning I generally advise taking half a step back - they will figure out how stances work eventually, but for now it's more than enough. So yeah, any of the above can constitute a stance change, but it's not a system to cheese, it's a conscious break of one player walloping another and forcing one to make hits count. C-c-c-combo breaker.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
Directly copied from playtest ARBv09 package , not the shorter version I see quoted above : For this Playtest, we’re asking all Playtesters to use a Flurry rule for all attacks (weapon and packet both). This is intended as a constant change to Alliance combat. Under the Flurry rule, a player should not direct more than three consecutive attacks (weapon strikes and/or packet attacks in any combination) against a single target before pausing to let the target call defenses and, if appropriate, reset their combat stance. Individual deliberate strikes which give enough time between them for a target to call defenses need not be counted as part of a Flurry. All players involved in a combat should adhere to this rule. The intent is that no player should be so “overwhelmed” calling defenses that they cannot apply their own offensive abilities.

this is considerably more in depth than what I saw posted in this thread earlier. pg 14 of the doc. This does match what we use in Calgary, although it could specify more clearly that it is each player vs a single target, switching, or that 2 opponents on a player each still have 3.
 

Tantarus

Squire
They must have updated it since the first v.09 release. That is an improvement from the first version certainly. I will have to download the newest version.

Wonder what else was changed.
 

Sspyndel

Newbie
Sorry, I can't help you on that, I wasn't at our chapter's june 11 playtest, so I procrastinated in dl and reading it. Summer Skirmish was fun though.. ( Vikings, Romans, Medieval, Warhorse trainers, WW1 and WW2 re-enactors.. ) I don't recall if there was an amendment announcement or not.
 

Daimyo Shi

Newbie
It is pretty easy to shift attacks between 2 adjacent targets without pausing. Stance change is not defined at all, even after repeatedly being asked for.
What constitutes a stance change?
Can I just shift my front foot?
Do I have to swap my front and back feet?
Do I have to move in a certain direction like backward?
Does strafing around a target count as a stance change?

You say "in my mind" well everyone is different. That doesn't mean much/
Cipher defined stance well enough, I be honest unless fighting in a shield wall I don't fight adjacent targets very often they usually a at least a few steps away often more.
 

Tantarus

Squire
it's not a system to cheese, it's a conscious break of one player walloping another and forcing one to make hits count. C-c-c-combo breaker.
See that is the issue, without a well defined rule you open it up to cheese and abuse. That is what we are trying to prevent by asking for details and specifics. Vague rules lead to abuse both intentional and unintentional.
 
Top