When do enemies die?

[jamesrbrown]

So Zero Endurance, the enemy might still (depending on Initiative etc.) have one more Action in them before they croak. I don't see a problem with this since we play Endurance Loss as not meaning any type of "killing blow" or such, that is what Wounds are for. And Wounds DO take them out on the spot.

This idea and interpretation of the rules never occurred to me, but it is interesting. Perhaps I did not consider it due to the same example DavetheLost points out from LB 50. If your interpretation is right, it slightly diminishes the importance of initiative the way I am playing things.

Consider this: What if the key to understanding this is found in the word 'round'? The confusion is coming because Francesco uses the phrase, "at the end of a round." Traditionally, we all think of a round to include both the turns of the player-heroes and the adversaries as a whole before beginning another round. However, a clue into Francesco's thinking about a round is found in the example of combat on LB 50. He says, "Then it is the turn of Beran to attack with his Great axe (again against a TN of 10): he swings his two-handed weapon at the damaged Attercop, hoping to cut it down before it attacks him on its round[.]" Why would he say, "It's round?"

I believe his definition of the term 'round' is larger. It is traditional AND interchangeable with the word 'turn.' Every player-hero has a round or turn. If an adversary is reduced to zero endurance, it is knocked out at the end of a round, meaning the current player-hero's round or turn.

[GhostWolf69]

I could be wrong of course. I don't mind.

But it's a testament to the fact that the game works either way. We have not seen this as a "game breaker" and I for one like the fact that the enemies (unless wounded) will get a chance to act, even if the players always (or almost always) get the first strike in combat.

So yes, it does "lower" the importance of Initiative, and yes, that is the way I like it. So far... maybe now that my players read this thread, they will have a different opinion?

/wolf

[Osric]

What if the key to understanding this is found in the word 'round'?

Hi James,
I went looking for exactly this bit of... either "semantics" or "detail of the technical language employed", according to your own taste.
But I reached the opposite conclusion: that a TOR Round includes the actions of all participants, and is divided into a Players' Turn and an Enemies' Turn. So an adversary's action could easily come after it sustained the attack that "immediately" reduced its Endurance, but before the end of the round.

But I don't play that.
I'm tempted to follow Ghostwolf's example and rule that a round contains plenty of continuity of action, and Initiative only decides the order in which we determine the results of everyone's ongoing efforts.
But practically, the uncertainty over whether an adversary is 'finished' yet or not would be massively irritating, e.g. for those Player-heroes who have to choose who to attack after their Forward-stance Companion has delivered a nice, hefty blow to his target -- which might or might not have been enough to take it down.
Francesco's vision might be that everyone should be paying attention to the adversary in front of them and not looking to MMOishly concentrate damage on one target at a time until it's been taken down. But my players carry all the conventions and assumptions of many years' gaming experience, and it would be a hard sell to persuade them that this was a better approach.

Cheers,
--Os.