> Hesitation: Per the article, hesitating vs flat-out missing has real game effects. If hesitation describes some misses, then those misses shouldn't use ammo, make a weapon unready, allow counter-actions that depend on an attack having been made, etc.

I only use the hesitation description for hand to hand combat. So, there is no problem with ammo. But you’re right with the other rule problems: weapon unready, counter-actions…

> No opening: No "opening" assumes an actively defending opponent…

Not necessarily. A good guard can let you no opening to hit at without requiring any active defense.

> IMO, taking the Evaluate action already does an okay job of simulating waiting for an opening, especially Evaluate followed by Deceptive Attack.

No, because the evaluate maneuver is taken by the attacker, when he wants and for as long as he wants. No opening means that he can’t do what he wants.

> Not right distance: Hmm, if you're too far away and miss because of that, I'd say that fits under a regular, flat-out miss (above); the little extra description is nice. On the other hand, if you're too far away and thus don't attack until you're better within range, I guess the rules equivalent would be actually taking Move (if the distance factor is a matter of whole hexes), or Evaluate (if you're technically the right distance on the game board, but want to simulate that real-life matter of getting the inches just right).

Sometimes, there is just a distance problem of one foot… It is sufficient to miss your target and it brings no problem with the hexe grid or step rules.

> Foe avoids blow: Scoring a "hit", which the foe then dodges, is the clear way to game this; no problem there. I believe you're talking about a TH 'miss', though, which would have been a hit, had not the foe moved in some minor way (not big enough to burn an active defense). Maybe that can simply fall under the category of not getting the TH bonus for a stationary target; either way, it seems a flat-out miss with a little added description, and I don't see any conflicts with other rules. Looks OK!

Yes. Even if the foe doesn’t move first (a guard who didn’t notice your coming, for instance) he can suddenly step forward to watch something, or bend down to pick up something on the floor, etc.

> Not counterattacking: Looks similar to hesitation or "no opening". Again, I'll note the same rules conflicts as hesitation carries, as well as note that taking Evaluate simulates this fine, IMO.

Right. As said above, there are some conflicts… But the GM can solve them easily. When the attacker hesitates or looses his counterattack because he is not in a position good enough to do it, he can be unready. So, even if his weapon is not unready, the GM can assess that he still can’t use it before rereading himself.

> "Opening? But he just did AOA; his defense should all be open!..."

As said in your conclusion, having several description possibilities let you use the one that best correspond to the situation. If the attacker defense is all open, I don’t use the no opening description for instance; I prefer something like: "His attack was so savage and brutal that it make you loose your balance for a little while… So, you don’t succeed to counterattack him this turn."

> "And if I didn't attack, why can't my axe Parry now?..."

"Your axe could parry, but your still hesitating / in a bad position to use it…" Believe me, during a fight, there are times where you are so much thinking about what you will do next that you can’t attack nor defend correctly… Learning to attack and defend fluently (i.e. without hesitation) is hard.

Thank you for your so ineresting site and your so prompt answer.

Gollum