HYPERBOREA / WC question

**Posted by SavageGM** 10/13/2015 12:03 pm

So if you have a WC that is 2 higher than the enemy, allowing you to attack first when entering melee, regardless of initiative, do you get your full number of attacks on this first strike?

**Posted by DMPrata** 10/13/2015 6:06 pm

That's my understanding. Multiple attacks in AS&SH™ are always rolled at the same time on the attacker's initiative, not split over the round as in some games. The optional rule you cite essentially just changes the initiative roll to favour the combatant with longer reach.

**Posted by SavageGM** 10/13/2015 7:31 pm

DMPrata wrote:
That's my understanding. Multiple attacks in AS&SH™ are always rolled at the same time on the attacker's initiative, not split over the round as in some games. The optional rule you cite essentially just changes the initiative roll to favour the combatant with longer reach.

Thanks for the clarification.

**Posted by Ghul** 10/14/2015 6:03 am

I've actually tried both, and they both have a certain appeal. The method DMP mentions above is absolute. It keeps things simple, and resolution is quicker; in fact, it also works well with ranged attacks beating initiative, regardless of initiative results. Then there is the other way: If the combatant who loses initiative attacks at 2/1 rate or greater, and has reach, potentially you can have that 1e feel of attacks being split over the the round. It could look something like this:

Halberd Wielder (2/1) vs. Dagger Wielder (1/1)

Dagger wielder wins initiative. The two close in on each other, but because of the WC difference, and despite the loss of initiative, you could have halberd attack, dagger attack, halberd attack.

I'm partial to the latter, even though I've used the former more in practice. I'm curious how other folks might prefer it, as this might require clarification in the new printing.

**Posted by SavageGM** 10/14/2015 9:11 am

I think I like the first, multiple attacks on first strike. It does keep it simple and I think if you have multiple attacks it's shows a certain amount of skill has been achieved. I think of it like the intro scene to Fellowship of the Ring movie where the orc army clashes into the line of greatsword wielding elves and they got off 2 sword swings before the orcs. Also I see multiple attacks as one "flow" of attacks, not an attack, reset, attack.

**Posted by Blackadder23** 10/14/2015 10:31 am

I also like to keep it simple, so I would rule all attacks took place at the same time.

Of course I usually forget about this rule anyway...

**Posted by mabon5127** 10/14/2015 3:16 pm

I prefer them all at once.

You could however wielding a sword win initiative, half move and attack, slay your first enemy, move to a halberd wielding cataphract, get attacked, then use your second attack!

**Posted by rhialto** 10/14/2015 6:25 pm

I'm divided: my inclination is for "all at once" (simpler, faster) most of the time and "split" (dramatic fights) some of the time. So "depends on circumstances" is my response. :-)

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 10/21/2015 1:53 pm

Don't the rules say that the attacker can choose to split his/her attacks up into phases 1 and 2 if s/he wants?

**Posted by DMPrata** 10/21/2015 7:20 pm

Handy Haversack wrote:
Don't the rules say that the attacker can choose to split his/her attacks up into phases 1 and 2 if s/he wants?

Well, technically the rules say a fighter with two attacks can move ½ and attack once in phase one, and then move ½ and attack again in phase two. I suppose that means he could do the same without moving if he so desired.