An Advanced Guide to Dueling - More Than Manual Block *Updated 6/16*

[MadocComadrin]

Thanks for the clarification Stabbing, I thought that didn't sound right, also, it doesn't make any realistic sense either.
Edit: and thanks to Reapy, whose post seem to appeared out of thin air sometime AFTER it said they were posted 

 

[LordHasek]

Hmm, I have edited the post to remove the overhead being chambered by a thrust. I seem to remember not so long ago being able to chamber overheads with a thrust. It only really looks correct on Swadian swords however, the thrust chamber is done next to your head and it connects with the overhead as it comes down to knock it away. Will need to test it some when I am back home.

 

[LordHasek]

Hmm....reading this makes me think I fall into the AC category...though the kick-slash is said to be in the DC domain, I think it can be used aggressively too.

Don't forget my warning that the styles are only intended in the broadest of senses. AC duelists can use kick slashes effectively, but often only successfully against other AC duelists. Against a PL or PC duelist you will have trouble getting the positioning necessary to kick-slash with any regularity.

EDIT: I have just added a small update to the chamber blocking section along with cleaning up the formatting.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Thanks for the clarification Stabbing, I thought that didn't sound right, also, it doesn't make any realistic sense either.

The only one where it did make sense is the 2-hand sword, since the animation when cocked for an attack is about the head level, and thus would come into contact with an overhead.  Every other weapon it indeed made zero sense.

 

[Reapy]

100% sure right now you can not chamber an incoming overhead attack with a thrust. That is how it used to be, but no longer.

 

[BJB]

Thank you for this excellent guide. This really helped giving me inspiration and clarification.

 

[King Harkinian]

I disagree with the concept of "deep feints" and "shallow feints". As it is said in fencing, a FEINT is supposed to make your opponent FAINT -- therefore, "deep feints" which are outside measure, and have no realistic possiblity of hurting you, are meaningless flourishes to be ignored.

A feint is meant to be credible -- it must pose an actual threat to make the opponent react to said threat, and then be followed up by a true attack (or another feint). If the defender can just ignore your feint, then you're doing it wrong. Call it what you will, it's not feinting, it's just a crude attempt at intimidation at best.

What should be kept in mind, rather than all this "deep feints" business, is that, as La Boëssière said, there is only one move that counts -- the last one, it doesn't matter if you opponent feints twice or a hundred times.

 

[LordHasek]

You can disagree all you wish to Harkinian, but your argument is predicated on real fencing having meaning within warband, which is a non-sequitur. In real fencing, there is no directional attack system that limits the angle and direction of attack to 4 or 5 neatly defined arcs. This limitation is inherent to the warband combat engine and it makes such deep-feinting and shallow-feinting effective because of the ease with which an opponent can block a uni-directional unfeinted attack. Knowing how easy it is to block said attack, you must then look for a way to cause your opponent to miss his block. You'll quickly realize the only real tool you have in this department is the feint.

 

[King Harkinian]

You can disagree all you wish to Harkinian, but your argument is predicated on real fencing having meaning within warband, which is a non-sequitur. In real fencing, there is no directional attack system that limits the angle and direction of attack to 4 or 5 neatly defined arcs. This limitation is inherent to the warband combat engine and it makes such deep-feinting and shallow-feinting effective because of the ease with which an opponent can block a uni-directional unfeinted attack. Knowing how easy it is to block said attack, you must then look for a way to cause your opponent to miss his block. You'll quickly realize the only real tool you have in this department is the feint.

I am not claiming that fencing and warband duelling are the same; I have played quite a bit of duelling in warband and I'm a competent enough player at that style.

What I do maintain to be equal between warband and fencing is that if you attack out of measure, there is no threat to be countered, and therefore no meaning to the feint. You might as well be idle rather than frantically alternating between RMB and LMB, because there is no reason why your opponent would react, one way or the other, to these "deep feints". Feinting once in range is quite a different matter, as your feints are concealing your true intention and allowing you to fool your opponent's attempted parries.

Just my two cents.

 

[darkweaver]

I disagree with the concept of "deep feints" and "shallow feints".

For one, how can you disagree with concepts?  That aside, it's not 100% clear when someone is or isn't in range.  The opponent's transition from deep feints into shallow feints or simply a real attack is where one gets caught.  Basically, you get them to ignore one move too many by making some initial moves clearly harmless.

Also, I give your attempt to show off a fail. 

 

[King Harkinian]

For one, how can you disagree with concepts?  That aside, it's not 100% clear when someone is or isn't in range.  The opponent's transition from deep feints into shallow feints or simply a real attack is where one gets caught.  Basically, you get them to ignore one move too many by making some initial moves clearly harmless.

I disagree with the concepts, as in their existence or relevance. The first I do not consider to be a feint in the first place.

Also, I give your attempt to show off a fail. 

I was actually attempting to contribute in a constructive way, but you seem to have resented it and felt compelled to call it "showing off". Rest assured that it is not the case.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

I agree with Harkinian. I don't bother trying to react at all to feinting until I know I'm in range, and except for a couple of the lesser used weapons (ashwood pike, maul, some of the maces) I basically know whether or not I'm in range these days. In fact that is one of my key methods of fighting. Stay just out of range, and when the person swings I step up and attack now that they are open. It's good for fighting mid-level players, though any high level player will switch to a block in time.

I don't see a point to all of the flourishes before combat even starts.

 

[darkweaver]

I don't see a point to all of the flourishes before combat even starts.

So you're saying you never misjudge range by a tiny bit?  If you ever do, then deep feinting has a chance to trip you up.  If you don't (which, honestly, seems unlikely for anyone), then the person doing the feints hasn't lost anything.

 

[King Harkinian]

I don't see a point to all of the flourishes before combat even starts.

So you're saying you never misjudge range by a tiny bit?  If you ever do, then deep feinting has a chance to trip you up.  If you don't (which, honestly, seems unlikely for anyone), then the person doing the feints hasn't lost anything.

From the OP:

"A deep feint most often occurs when two duelists are out of striking range with each other"

Bolded the important bits for ya.

"Almost" on striking range, or a range which can be covered in very little time by stepping up, would qualify as striking range in my book (that is, the distance at which you start to get cautious) -- so a feint at that range would be a feint, and not a "deep feint".

 

[LordHasek]

most often occurs

Bolded the important part for you.

One of the greatest disadvantages to the Warband combat system is the predictable nature of attacks. It is a fact that there would be no duel if no one initiated with an opening attack. How should one approach this then? From my time dueling with edward, he is often content to parry the initial attacks before counter attacking. For the one doing the attacking however, he must make a decision on how to attack, and more often than not it is advantageous to keep as much information unknown to your opponent as opponent as possible.

I agree that deep feinting from across the map is a meaningless maneuver, but you also failed to pay attention to my definition of deep and shallow feints outlined at the beginning of the article. A shallow feint is any feint pattern with three or less feints in the series, ie. a single, double, or triple feint. A deep feint being any feint series with four or more stages. During an actual engagement, you can meaningfully analyze a deep feint series ie. "Rf - Of - Rf - Lf - L". This is a perfectly valid series and also serves a purpose during active engagement and is also coincidentally a deep feint. The reason why I do not devote more time to analyzing these long series of feints I thought was obvious, a deep feint during engagement more than one or two times is going to quickly end up with you respawning because your opponent realized they could safely cheat their parry and kill you with little difficulty. Maybe this was not an obvious point. In any case, I devoted more time to analyzing the other situation - you are jockeying for position with your opponent, just out of range of each others weapons, a deep feint here will allow you to transition into a position based attack with a reasonable chance of success. You are not standing back and feint spamming wildly, you are using footwork to position yourself for an attack while concealing the form the attack will take.  I hope that clarified things.

 

[King Harkinian]

most often occurs

Bolded the important part for you.

One of the greatest disadvantages to the Warband combat system is the predictable nature of attacks. It is a fact that there would be no duel if no one initiated with an opening attack. How should one approach this then? From my time dueling with edward, he is often content to parry the initial attacks before counter attacking. For the one doing the attacking however, he must make a decision on how to attack, and more often than not it is advantageous to keep as much information unknown to your opponent as opponent as possible.

I agree that deep feinting from across the map is a meaningless maneuver, but you also failed to pay attention to my definition of deep and shallow feints outlined at the beginning of the article. A shallow feint is any feint pattern with three or less feints in the series, ie. a single, double, or triple feint. A deep feint being any feint series with four or more stages. During an actual engagement, you can meaningfully analyze a deep feint series ie. "Rf - Of - Rf - Lf - L". This is a perfectly valid series and also serves a purpose during active engagement and is also coincidentally a deep feint. The reason why I do not devote more time to analyzing these long series of feints I thought was obvious, a deep feint during engagement more than one or two times is going to quickly end up with you respawning because your opponent realized they could safely cheat their parry and kill you with little difficulty. Maybe this was not an obvious point. In any case, I devoted more time to analyzing the other situation - you are jockeying for position with your opponent, just out of range of each others weapons, a deep feint here will allow you to transition into a position based attack with a reasonable chance of success. You are not standing back and feint spamming wildly, you are using footwork to position yourself for an attack while concealing the form the attack will take.  I hope that clarified things.

I can certainly agree with this second definition better, though I still think that feinting whilst hopelessly out of range is pretty much irrelevant -- or, otherwise, just be called preparatory manoeuvers rather than feinting.

Anyhow, my posts may have come off as a bit negative, and I forgot to congratulate you on your OP. You did a good job of summing things up and it's a useful guide.

EDIT: as to you "important" part, do you really mean to say that exceptions (as in not "most often") are the "important" part? Really? Now that's just dishonest.

 

[LordHasek]

I have modified the definition of deep feinting for better clarity.

"Deep Feinting" - A deep feint is any series of feints with more than three feints. A deep feint most often occurs when two duelists are out of striking range with each others. In this situation, the deep feint is intended to disguise the direction of the initial attack and make it hard for an opponent to properly position himself.

I definitely thank you for your input. When I went back and read what I had posted, it did come off as a little too vague from the simple definition I had intended. I included the additional notes in the definition of the term to give people context for visualizing a deep feint, the opening deep feint is the usage with which most people are familiar. This is not to say that deep feints when in engagement range of an opponent are worthless or never seen, but rather it is intended to help the reader visualize a deep feint, while leaving its precise usage up to personal style.

EDIT: as to you "important" part, do you really mean to say that exceptions (as in not "most often") are the "important" part? Really? Now that's just dishonest.

The important part is that the exceptions were intended to cover the very situation you are mentioning right now without me having to write an additional three paragraphs to clarify things. But, we digress and I do appreciate your input.

 

[Orion]

Yes, I know you've already clarified your definition and whatnot, Hasek, but I've still got 2 cents to give on the subject.

I agree with an earlier post by Harkinian completely. Let me find it really quick...

I disagree with the concept of "deep feints" and "shallow feints". As it is said in fencing, a FEINT is supposed to make your opponent FAINT -- therefore, "deep feints" which are outside measure, and have no realistic possiblity of hurting you, are meaningless flourishes to be ignored.

A feint is meant to be credible -- it must pose an actual threat to make the opponent react to said threat, and then be followed up by a true attack (or another feint). If the defender can just ignore your feint, then you're doing it wrong. Call it what you will, it's not feinting, it's just a crude attempt at intimidation at best.

What should be kept in mind, rather than all this "deep feints" business, is that, as La Boëssière said, there is only one move that counts -- the last one, it doesn't matter if you opponent feints twice or a hundred times.

That's the one.

He hits the proverbial nail right on its head with this post. There's no point to feinting outside of your own reach, and don't go questioning my ability to judge distance. This game is running in a simulated 3-dimensional world which includes dimensions of width, height, and depth. You can judge distance when you have depth. Practice with the weapons also gives you a good feel for their reach.

I honestly don't think any maneuvers that resemble feinting should be called feinting when they aren't done in range of an opponent. I'd call it a successful feint if the enemy moves to block in the direction of the feint, because they obviously have felt at risk of being attacked and so defended against it, which means the maneuver has succeeded in feigning threat. I don't even bother blocking if someone is swapping their attack directions quickly and randomly when they're outside of their own range. The only purpose it serves is to slow down their movement speed and annoy me. I don't block until I see an attack direction held for longer than a feint necessitates. You can tell when someone is actually striking rather than feinting unless they're awfully slow at it.

So, I suppose my point is the term "feinting" could only be applied to an attack that is thrown and canceled with the intent of forcing an opponent to defend themselves against a false attack, and should only be applied if said maneuver is successful in forcing the opponent to defend.

Otherwise you're just waving your sword around like this guy without the special effects.

 

[darkweaver]

The only purpose it serves is to slow down their movement speed and annoy me.

Given how few offensive tools the game gives you, I'll take what I can get.  Seriously, judicious backing up + good manual blocking trumps any offensive tools we have.  Against a good defensive player, you're basically waiting for him to make a physical mistake blocking, and your tools to outwit them are extremely limited.

So, I suppose my point is the term "feinting" could only be applied to an attack that is thrown and canceled with the intent of forcing an opponent to defend themselves against a false attack, and should only be applied if said maneuver is successful in forcing the opponent to defend.

I don't think that's a good set of definitions.  One is a failed feint, the other is a successful feint, but both are feints.  What defines a feint is the intent, not the outcome.  If the feint is horribly bad, it's still a feint if it was intended as such, even if it's so bad the opponent can't tell that's what it was

 

[duckduckMOO]

*snip*

feinting from outside of range can be effective. long story short if you can trick your opponent into thinking you're going to miss they may well take a swing intending to step in and get a hit while you recover. If you feint instead of swinging you control when your actual attack comes (feint slightly faster than reaction time +lag) and you have either a confused/rattled opponent who blocks quickly or both of you swinging at each other. If they follow through (unless you feitn too slowly which is easy to do) You should in theory win this every time. It's one of two ways I can hit really good manual blockers who are waiting for you to slip up, and is the only way I have of making them think so without actually slipping up/taking risks.
The other simpler version of this move is feinting out of range, then if they step in with a counter you step out. I can't pull this off because I suck at positioning .
Oh and you can just make people who aren't massively comfortable about what is/isn't a feint, or just about range, or if they have a shorter weapon, uncomfortable.

edit: spelling/wording