Dirty Tactics

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

Anyway, let's look at two possible GM responses to "Can I try throwing sand in his eyes?" - which is the more interesting?
a) "Sure. Make a WS test to see if you hit."
b) "No, I've assumed you're already doing that".

That arguement has value, certainly...

But do you really know any character who wouldn't knee their opponent in the groin, bite their ear/arm/other extraneous body part, stamp on their hand as they reach for a dropped weapon...etc. if they were losing the fight where death is certainly on the line?
Especially if it's a Xenos scum/foul Heretic/vile Kinslayer/<Insert hostile of choice>...

Which do you prefer?
a,) Inquisitor Ecks is being beaten six ways from Tuesday, his opponent is better than him and he's rarely getting a hit through. "Can I throw Sand in his eyes?" "Sure, +5 WS for this attack" "Hit."
b,) Inquisitor Ecks is being beaten six ways from Tuesday, his opponent is better than him and he's rarely getting a hit through. "Hit!" "Ecks dives under the powerful backswing, landing on his shoulder and rolling to his feet, killing the impact. Almost before his opponent can react the plucky young Ordo Hereticus' hand flashes out, a cascade of lime rich dust from the floor of the hive, scooped as he rolled, leaps from his outstreched fingers. Ecks follows it in and, with a double handed grip on his shock maul, swings the weapon in hard under the other man's solar plexus..."

[Kaled]

Why not the GM imposed test/bonus of the first with the narrative description of the second? I see no reason for them to be exclusive. As a GM I much prefer it when players ask to do something not explictly covered by the rules - it shows they're paying attention and are involved in making the story interesting and cool. More fun to reward their thinking with an appropriate test or bonus than to tell them it's already included in their WS.

[MarcoSkoll]

But do you really know any character who wouldn't if they were losing the fight where death is certainly on the line?

Most characters would, but would resort to it at different stages. Some people would use it even if "winning" the fight. Some when things started to go downhill. Some only as a last resort.

Not all of my characters are equally noble. While some of my characters like to see themselves as being morally above their opponents, I've also written characters who'll break arms if they find the owner too annoying (and that's what they do to allies).

Which do you prefer?

I don't see that I have to - as Kaled says, a rules bonus and a narrative description can be easily combined. They're independent variables. One, the other, neither, both... doesn't matter.

Such things will be a common part of a fight in Inquisitor and may be part of regular attack actions, but I don't see that should mean a player should be prohibited from specifically attempting them as dedicated actions.

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

The Narrative description is there to obfusctate the game mechanics, if a lucky hit arises then (from my perspective) dirty tactics are one of the means by which the GM can explain away the vagueries of the dice - that lucky hit is not purely down to luck but to choosing that moment to do something beyond the taught forms.

Meanwhile the deliberate intention will generally disappear in the laws of probability, the sand in the face trick from Ecks is ignored by his (superior) opponent simply because 5% isn't enough to bring them to a level... So Ecks either wastes a good cinematic or does it constantly in the hope of a lucky roll and overuses it to the point of wastage.

Some characters may have trouble with dishonourable conduct - but in general that will have been discussed with the GM anyway...
Clever plans (bursting into a room, festooned with what look like explosives, yelling "Swiss Sniper! Everybody down!" for example) are different from the more basic sand in the eyes, knee to the groin sort of tactics. The former are the domain of the players, the latter (again, from my perspective YMMV) are tools with which the GM can tell the story... That is, after all his job.

[MarcoSkoll]

That lucky hit is not purely down to luck but to choosing that moment to do something beyond the taught forms.

Perhaps. But then again, maybe it is just a lucky hit. And I wouldn't necessarily say it's a waste of a good cinematic. Somewhat subject to the caveats I talk about below, it is however possible to turn a "hit" into a cinematic where a tactic that failed earlier goes right this time.

And anyway, sometimes really cinematic things go wrong. It's not like I expect to automatically pass the rolls needed to sprint along the walkway, vault over the end rail onto the roof of the Valkyrie taking off, roll spectacularly to dissipate the impact, then fire through the canopy killing the pilot. Cool, possibly. Automatic pass, no.

Meanwhile the deliberate intention will generally disappear in the laws of probability

Personally, I wouldn't write it as a +5% WS bonus. Like I said, I'd make it a disadvantage to the opponent, not a bonus to Ecks.

I'd also punish a player for unimaginative repetition. After all, after you've tried sand in the face once, your opponent is going to have wised up to it, and it's thus unlikely to work if you try it again.
After too many repetitions (which would often be the second or third attempt), I'd probably give their opponent such things as an increased chance of avoiding the hit, and perhaps an automatic counter attack if they do avoid it.

If at any point, a player does something completely repetitive - be it throwing dozens of photon flash grenades to keep everyone on the table perma-stunned, or uses "Covering fire" repeatedly to pin down a character turn after turn - then they will find it will stop working very well at all, or I'll find a way to turn it horribly against them.

Basically, if it would be dull in a movie, then I'll make it undesirable to do on the table.

Some characters may have trouble with dishonourable conduct - but in general that will have been discussed with the GM anyway...

Depends on the game. At Conclave events, there's not enough time to describe each character beforehand, so it doesn't happen.

Most GMs at these events wouldn't necessarily know- unless they're one of the people who's had the persistence to read and remember my character sheets on the forum - which of my characters would happily systematically cripple their opponents in a fight and who would play somewhat by the rules.

[GAZKUL]

i quite like the idea of using IEDs as booby traps, there are many weapons not covered by the rules for this sort of occasion. notaby hiding weapons from opponents and then drawing them at the oppertune moment eg negotioations for a peace treaty, but also things like mines, punch daggers, trip wires with grenades, poisened blades etc.

[DapperAnarchist]

Hiding weapons is covered in the "Packing Heat" article. Punch daggers can be made with the Custom Close Combat Weapon rules that are somewhere on the internet, or if not, in badly formatted PDFs on my harddrive. Poisoned blades are in the rulebook. The Pathfinders article includes the Booby Traps rule.

[GAZKUL]

cheers, i've actually already got the link to the custom cc weapon rules.