Zornhau Forums

Feedback for the Tribulation chapter and wound tables goes here.

I am aware this is a working draft rather than the finished product. Additionally I'm at work at the moment, so time is limited. So I start with some observations, questions, suggestions, and promise to be back with more.

pg 128 wrote:Combat here is handled differently from in many RPGs.

Grammar: Consider rewording to active voice. More direct, less confusing.
Var1: Sword & Scoundrels handles combat differently than most RPGs.
Var2: We handle combat differently here than in many RPGs.
Var3: Combat here is different from that in many RPGs.

pg 129 wrote:The first four of these bands are melee, close, short, and medium range. These are the most common ranges you will have to deal with and also represent the ranges of most weapons. The remaining three bands are long, extended, and remote range.

Format: The word "range" is regular in "medium range" and bold in "remote range". Should be bold in "medium range" as well (or vice versa).

pg 129 wrote:These represent the ranges at which distance begins to limit the amount of detail human eyes can discern.

Clarity: Range used both as common parlance and game jargon (implied, I know) in the same sentence. To avoid confusion consider rewording to:
"These range bands represent non-linear intervals at which distance begins to..."

pg 129 wrote:The environment covers everything from potentially hazardous terrain (loose rocks, a narrow staircase) to sources of cover (crumbling wall, thick trees), or any other thing that might be of interest (pouring rain, dim lighting, bitter cold).

Nitpick: To be consistent with other examples within the sentence either make it "a crumbling wall" or "crumbling walls".

pg 131 wrote:If two actions rolled the same number for sequence, they can be assumed to happen simultaneously unless the tied results would be in conflict with each other. In that case, the player goes first. If it’s a tie between players, just resolve it with a contest of Speed.

Suggestion: To simplify things here a bit, if it's a tie between two PCs (or two NPCs) skip rolling dice (contest of Speed); it's one less die roll (the less the better) plus we avoid potential Speed Contest ties. Instead simply compare Speed ranks with highest rank going first -- in case of tie resolve with a coin toss/d2 roll.

pg 131 wrote:If for some reason they change their mind, either because their action is no longer possible or some other kind of action seems suddenly more desirable, they can do so. However, they now act as though their number in sequence is 13 - they will come last after any other character has gone.

RAW if multiple characters for whatever reason want to change action within the same Round they all get to act at 13. I know it's an unlikely scenario, but when it occurs it's problematic.
Suggestion: Instead of acting at 13 increase sequence count by 12. Meaning that a Red1 becomes 13, a White4 becomes 16, and so on.

pg 131 wrote:Anything that is a melee or ranged combat is indicated by a red d6. On that character’s action, they can do one of the following:

Nomenclature: To my understanding one takes an action during his sequence within a given round. To avoid confusion consider rewording to:
"Any action that is directly melee or ranged combat related is indicated by a red d6. On that character’s sequence, they can do one of the following:"

pg 132 wrote: The character charging in may draw a readied weapon as part of this action and has the choice to either automatically take the initiative or provoke a red/white throw (see Dueling, pg XX). If the charging character chooses the latter, their opponent may freely draw a readied weapon as well.

Question: If one chooses to automatically have the initiative, he is considered to have rolled Red1 and the opponent Red2+ or White for the purposes of initiative within the bout? Double Red is entirely different than Red/White.

pg 133 wrote:If you were stuck in a melee combat at the end of the last round, all parties involved must roll a red d6 for sequence. The actions of all parties involved are consumed on the first sequence roll to come up.

Question 1: Let's suppose Jeff charges Diego on Round 1 Sequence 2. He also gets Initiative. After three Plays of Tie after Tie after Tie they are in a deadlock, with Jeff having Initiative. Round 2 arrives and they both must roll Red. Jeff (who had Initiative) rolls 3 and Diego rolls 1. On Sequence 1 they resume their bout. Who has Initiative?
Question 2: Same scenario as above. Jeff attacks Diego on 2. He also gets Initiative. On Play1 Tempo2 Diego inflicts a Lv2 Wound on Jeff, ending the Bout for this Round. Next Round both roll Red. Diego rolls 5 and Jeff rolls 1. Again, who has Initiative?

pg 139 wrote:If you have relationship dice with your opponent or the goal of the fight is to defend the character with whom you have a relationship, you can tap those dice into your CP each play.

Two questions here:
1. If one has zero relationship dice but the opponent is an Enemy (per the Trait) how does this works?
2. Lancelot has Drive: For the love of Guinevere 5 and Relationship: Guinevere 3. When Lancelot fights to defend Guinevere's honor he taps +8CP? Isn't that the definition of double-dipping?

pg 139 wrote:Other abilities and traits can apply situationally, but only to an individual hazard roll or stunt (see maneuvers, pg XX). Tapping in these instances follows all of the normal restrictions, but only one ability or trait may be tapped into a given roll.

Let's suppose an individual environmental hazard of "Rocking deck" at r2. Obviously a high Seamanship/Personal Trait Sea Legs/Background Salty Dog could tap into this hazard roll, or any Stunt involving rigging. Tapping won't affect one's CP directly, instead it will increase these individual checks, correct?
Questions:
1. Can one designate zero CP for the hazard/stunt roll and simply roll associated Skill/Trait tap instead? Or he must invest a minimum of 1CP to begin with?
2. Can one tap multiple times the same ability within a single play? In the aforementioned example, could someone tap Salty Dog 3 vs. r2 hazard to remain standing, then tap it again to play Stunt associated with rigging? If not, having multiple possible Taps (ie Seamanship TV2, Sea Legs 2d) allows tapping each once into different instances (hazard, stunt) during the same Play, context permitting?
3. How much situational are we talking here? For example, in the Positioning (One-vs-Many) hazard roll could the Loner tap in there Expertise: Acrobatics? Or the Many tap Warfare?

pg 143 wrote:Most attacks will deal some form of damage. This is usually equal to one of the DRs on the attacking weapon’s profile + The victor’s MoS and Brawn tap value. The defender may then subtract their own Brawn tap value and AV from this to get the wound level taken.

Suggestion: I have considering this for quite some time. Instead of using BTV for damage and soak you could use:

• STV (Speed) for damage, making it Weapon DR + STV + MoS. This simulates not only strong blows but also agile and fast blows.
• GTV (Grit) for soak, making it Armor AV + GTV. This simulates bodily hardiness and willpower when resisting blows.

One might argue that MoS is achieved through CP, where CP is Reflex (Agility+Cunning divided by 2) + Proficiency. Which means that using Speed (Brawn + Agility divided by 2) for damage calculation sounds like double dipping Agility, at least in a roundabout way. I am aware of this, still I feel it is a better alternative than having Damage=Soak=BTV, mainly because it opens more versatile Attribute builds that are useful in combat.

To be continued.

let me say beforehand, i LOVE what i'm seeing.

pg. 146 Sweep, i think that's almost exactly what i had suggested as a greatsword emphasis? possibly someone else, but it pleases me greatly to see it got included and the implementation is sleek.

False Attack, pg.156 wrote:Feign a false attack in order to open up your opponent’s line of defense. Declare
your attack as a False [Primary Maneuver] and pay the the activation cost for both
the offensive maneuver and False Attack. Roll as per the primary maneuver.
On a success you can choose between using the primary’s effect as normal, or
you may take your opponent’s successes as bonus dice to add to your pool for a
secondary maneuver to be declared and paid for in the following tempo.

i take this is what replaces feint? It does look a lot like what (iirc) I.33 calls a "Finta", so that's good in my book.

The variable AC is still in use on Stomp, what informed the decision to remove post-declaration dice boost?
I can kinda see where that was going though; even with how prohibitively expensive feint was, one could just empty one's entire pool and win the fight in the first tempo, and there's nothing the opponent can really do against it.

Master Strike, pg.157 wrote:Unlike a normal Linked attack, the secondary
maneuver does not suffer a disadvantage for using the blade again. Master-Strike
can’t be used from half-sword without switching grips and cannot be made part
of a linked maneuver.

i don't know why but that's a bit of a disappointment to me.
could this possibly be hacked so it's still a OFF/DEF maneuver but you can link it?
That or, off the top of my head, could define it as a link maneuver as in [Swing]&[Deflect] and then in application allow free choice which is the secondary or primary? something like that, iunno.
But that's just me trying to hack stuff again, so never mind.

nemedeus wrote:

Master Strike, pg.157 wrote:Unlike a normal Linked attack, the secondary
maneuver does not suffer a disadvantage for using the blade again. Master-Strike
can’t be used from half-sword without switching grips and cannot be made part
of a linked maneuver.

i don't know why but that's a bit of a disappointment to me.
could this possibly be hacked so it's still a OFF/DEF maneuver but you can link it?
That or, off the top of my head, could define it as a link maneuver as in [Swing]&[Deflect] and then in application allow free choice which is the secondary or primary? something like that, iunno.
But that's just me trying to hack stuff again, so never mind.

Now you confused me big time. Why is it a disappointment? Because it can't be used from a half-grip? Or something else I miss entirely?

To my understanding is almost the same as it was in 'Bastards.

Bastards wrote:MASTERCUT | SPEC | ADV | AC1
A maneuver specific to swords of the hand-and-a-half or two-handed variety. Swing the weapon at one’s opponent while angling the blade in such a way that it blocks the opponent’s line of attack, defending in the same motion. Can be declared as either an offensive or defensive maneuver. In either case, roll vs Base TN. Against an attack, it counts as a successful defense. As an offense, it does no damage directly, but becomes restraining. MoS becomes a follow-up Swing-based attack. Cannot be used from Half-sword.

Scoundrels wrote: MASTER-STRIKE | OFF or DEF | AC2
Attack and defense in the same motion. Bring your weapon forward in such a way that it negates your opponent’s line of attack, thus providing you a solid defense even as you offend. Declare as an attack and pay the activation cost. Roll vs. Base TN. If your opponent is defending, treat as a normal swing or thrust attack. If your opponent is attacking (even in a Red/Red), Master-Strike counts as though you’d used the Compound link maneuver for a Deflect & Swing (or Thrust). If the initial die roll is successful, you gain your MoS for an additional attack made in the same Tempo. Unlike a normal Linked attack, the secondary maneuver does not suffer a disadvantage for using the blade again. Master-Strike can’t be used from half-sword without switching grips and cannot be made part of a linked maneuver.

It has an increased AC by 1 but it allows you to choose between Swing- or Thrust- attacks and followup, as opposed to strictly Swing- attacks and followups before.

Benedict wrote:I am aware this is a working draft rather than the finished product. Additionally I'm at work at the moment, so time is limited. So I start with some observations, questions, suggestions, and promise to be back with more.

pg 128 wrote:Combat here is handled differently from in many RPGs.

Grammar: Consider rewording to active voice. More direct, less confusing.
Var1: Sword & Scoundrels handles combat differently than most RPGs.
Var2: We handle combat differently here than in many RPGs.
Var3: Combat here is differnt from that in many RPGs.

I disagree. The sentence as written is perfectly clear on what it means. Many people have a knee-jerk aversion to passive voice that is honestly quite overblown. Passive voice is strictly worse than the active voice in some contexts, strictly better in others, and neutral in still more. This is one of the those situations where it's neutral.

Let's compare the original with Ver1, 2 and 3. Ver1 explicitly specifies which rpg system we're talking about. Does it really need to do that? I'd have to check the context, but it seems pretty clear that the "here" in the original sentence refers to Sword and Scoundrels; explicitly spelling this out is unnecessary. Ver2 specifies that it was the ever nebulous "we" that did the handling; in both this version and the original, it is pretty safe for the reader to infer that the people doing the handling is the authors of the system. Ver3, while "active" in the grammatical sense, is ironically less active in the semantic sense, in that including some form of the word "handle" necessarily implies the existence of some conscious entity to do the handling; this revision gives you the impression that the rule system emerged fully formed from the author's brow with all its combat rules pre-written.

Benedict wrote:

nemedeus wrote:

Master Strike, pg.157 wrote:Unlike a normal Linked attack, the secondary
maneuver does not suffer a disadvantage for using the blade again. Master-Strike
can’t be used from half-sword without switching grips and cannot be made part
of a linked maneuver.

i don't know why but that's a bit of a disappointment to me.
could this possibly be hacked so it's still a OFF/DEF maneuver but you can link it?
That or, off the top of my head, could define it as a link maneuver as in [Swing]&[Deflect] and then in application allow free choice which is the secondary or primary? something like that, iunno.
But that's just me trying to hack stuff again, so never mind.

Now you confused me big time. Why is it a disappointment? Because it can't be used from a half-grip? Or something else I miss entirely?

To my understanding is almost the same as it was in 'Bastards.

Bastards wrote:MASTERCUT | SPEC | ADV | AC1
A maneuver specific to swords of the hand-and-a-half or two-handed variety. Swing the weapon at one’s opponent while angling the blade in such a way that it blocks the opponent’s line of attack, defending in the same motion. Can be declared as either an offensive or defensive maneuver. In either case, roll vs Base TN. Against an attack, it counts as a successful defense. As an offense, it does no damage directly, but becomes restraining. MoS becomes a follow-up Swing-based attack. Cannot be used from Half-sword.

Scoundrels wrote: MASTER-STRIKE | OFF or DEF | AC2
Attack and defense in the same motion. Bring your weapon forward in such a way that it negates your opponent’s line of attack, thus providing you a solid defense even as you offend. Declare as an attack and pay the activation cost. Roll vs. Base TN. If your opponent is defending, treat as a normal swing or thrust attack. If your opponent is attacking (even in a Red/Red), Master-Strike counts as though you’d used the Compound link maneuver for a Deflect & Swing (or Thrust). If the initial die roll is successful, you gain your MoS for an additional attack made in the same Tempo. Unlike a normal Linked attack, the secondary maneuver does not suffer a disadvantage for using the blade again. Master-Strike can’t be used from half-sword without switching grips and cannot be made part of a linked maneuver.

It has an increased AC by 1 but it allows you to choose between Swing- or Thrust- attacks and followup, as opposed to strictly Swing- attacks and followups before.

It's technically better than it was in 'Bastards, because if you're using it as an attack it just counts as an attack. As for linking it, it's actually cheaper to use a deflect & thrust or deflect & swing as a compound maneuver than it is to do a master-strike.

taelor wrote:The sentence as written is perfectly clear on what it means.

It's perfectly clear to me, even if I am not a native speaker. I believe that my English level is above average, so I guess that helps. Still I've seen native speakers disagreeing with this exact sentence. Not something similar to it. Exactly this: Combat here is handled differently from in many RPGs.

Add to this aforementioned fact that the book will be read by non-native speakers as well. This needs considering imo.

It's not a thing of active vs passive voice. It's a thing on clarity because it implies key factors -- mainly the comparison is partly implied rather than stated.

Combat here is handled differently from what in many RPGs? You want it passive? Try this instead:

Ver 4: Combat here is handled differently from that in many RPGs.
Ver 5: Combat here is handled differently than many RPGs. (replacing "from in" with "than" makes it so much streamlined)

And a last note, to avoid misunderstandings. This is not a grammar nazi pissing contest. It is feedback based on personal perceptions. The creators are the final arbiters on any changes, if needed. Because in essence we are all correct.

Agamemnon wrote:It's technically better than it was in 'Bastards, because if you're using it as an attack it just counts as an attack. As for linking it, it's actually cheaper to use a deflect & thrust or deflect & swing as a compound maneuver than it is to do a master-strike.

Yes, I also like it better than 'Bastards, that Restraining part seemed kinda redundant, plus the initial attack never goes through.

As for costs; yes it costs 1 more than a regular Deflect & Thrust. Still it allows you to link blade to blade without Disadvantage which is golden.

Benedict wrote: Now you confused me big time. Why is it a disappointment? Because it can't be used from a half-grip? Or something else I miss entirely?

To my understanding is almost the same as it was in 'Bastards.

[...]

It has an increased AC by 1 but it allows you to choose between Swing- or Thrust- attacks and followup, as opposed to strictly Swing- attacks and followups before.

it's the fact that it can't be used with the hot new mechanic. i thought i marked that part up?

Agamemnon wrote: It's technically better than it was in 'Bastards, because if you're using it as an attack it just counts as an attack. As for linking it, it's actually cheaper to use a deflect & thrust or deflect & swing as a compound maneuver than it is to do a master-strike.

i mean, i guess the linking AC is already part of mastercut itself.

Ah, you meant that you can't link it. Well, you don't have to. It is a link in itself. Similar -- even if not the same -- to Expulsion, which also boosts your CP by MoS and can't be linked for obvious reasons.

Benedict wrote:To be continued.

As promised.

pg 135 wrote:These can also be used as a kind of narrative pacing system, using simple melee to quickly resolve more trivial scuffles while reserving full melee for more climactic clashes.

Nitpick: While correct, "more" is repeated twice in the same sentence, making it a bit awkward for written form. Consider one of these two:
Ver 1: " ... system, usually using simple melee to quickly resolve trivial scuffles while reserving full melee for more climactic clashes."
Ver 2: " ... system, using simple melee to quickly resolve most trivial scuffles while reserving full melee for more climactic clashes."

pg 136-137 wrote:If you’re willing to inflict significant injuries, establish what we’re talking about. A light brawl is going to end up with some level 2 and 3 wounds — gnarly
bruises, sprains, maybe a fracture, but nothing that won’t heal in short order. More serious fights may inflict level 3 and 4 wounds. These are the kinds of injuries will put someone out of commission for some time. If you lose, you’ll suffer whatever it is you were going to inflict if you’d won. Don’t bother fooling with weapon damage or armor values at this level, but common sense will apply. The GM shouldn’t assign a level 4 cutting wound if you’re in full plate. The Rigid and Metal qualities still inform the results.

If you’re willing to kill your opposition, the situation becomes more delicate. Like social conflict, this is handled asymmetrically between PCs and NPCs. If a PC wins against an NPC, they kill their target. Full stop. If the PCs lose, however, (whether against PCs or NPCs) take a moment and calculate the actual damage (victor’s MoS+Brawn Tap+Weapon’s DR vs PC’s Brawn Tap+Armor Value). Determine the wound location randomly on 2d6 for each character involved on the losing side. The PCs take whatever wounds would apply. NB! Even if the wound would not have incapacitated the character, the fight is lost regardless. They’ve been fenced into a corner, disarmed, knocked out, or otherwise had it made clear that they are done.

Question: How to assign wound location when trying to inflict wounds but no kill? Like when trying to kill (randomly on 2d6 for each character involved on the losing side)?

Observation: Trying to kill is supposed to be at higher stakes than trying to inflict serious (Lv3 or Lv4) wounds, correct? If that's the case the system RAW falls in a paradox here.

Let's suppose a backstreet scuffle where the party is armed with swords and decently (maille+) armored against unarmored ruffians armed with clubs/knives/etc. The system already provides for gear mismatch; in this scenario the PCs will have Advantage, the NPCs Disadvantage, or both.

• When trying to seriously wound them a MoF1 for you will result in Lv3/Lv4 wounds AND your side beaten.
• When trying to kill them a MoF1 for you will result in Lv1 wounds at best AND your side beaten.

Which is a paradox. When better armored (and probably better armed too) you are better off trying to kill instead of going for serious wounds but no kill. Because losing is a lot easier on your side. This throws the stakes out off the window.

pg 137 wrote:However, such events should be used sparingly and this is prime opportunity to escalate to full melee.

Nitpick: Consider this instead. It has more emphasis between the two extremes (Simple vs. Full).
"However such events should be used sparingly, this being a prime opportunity to escalate to full melee instead."

pg 137 wrote:Reckless players can lose even when they have the mechanical edge on their opposition.

Nitpick: Consider rewording to:
"Reckless players can lose even when they have the mechanical edge."

pg 137 wrote:The core unit of time in a bout is called a play and represents an individual cycle of melee combat.

Nomenclature: Now I'm gonna bust Agamemnon's balls.

Why the core unit is called a Play? I get the blood opera theme and puns intended, still in my mind a Play should be a bigger and nebulous time unit, more akin to a Campaign or a Chronicle:

Play > Act > Scene

I'd honestly prefer one of these two in place of Play to be used as the core time unit:

• The Measure (musical notation: a segment of time corresponding to a specific number of beats) which messes well with the blood opera theme and is a perfect match with Tempo.
• The Exchange, because I find it better-sounding than Play, plus it reinforces the concept of a "conversation in steel" to boot.

Not that it matters much, it's just me bitchin' in da corner.


To be continued (again).

Benedict wrote:Why the core unit is called a Play? I get the blood opera theme and puns intended, still in my mind a Play should be a bigger and nebulous time unit, more akin to a Campaign or a Chronicle:

It's a fencing term. A "play" refers to a fencing technique, a specific string of actions and responses. The translations of old fechtbuchs are where the term comes from. Free sparring is often known as freeplay. Plays with the sword are "swordplay." I believe it's a very good word choice and it adequately describes a length of 2 tempos. The real world meaning of play lines up with the in-game meaning of play. So, you're looking at the word with its theatrical definition in mind, but the appropriate context is the fencing definition. I expect many modern RPG players unfamiliar with HEMA will read it the way you did. Similarly I think most will see "fencing" and think not of real fighting with real weapons but of sport fencing. I think that's okay because these games can spark an interest in HEMA, and it's good to use terms associated with it.

For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ-G63XygpU

myanbar wrote:

Benedict wrote:Why the core unit is called a Play? I get the blood opera theme and puns intended, still in my mind a Play should be a bigger and nebulous time unit, more akin to a Campaign or a Chronicle:

It's a fencing term. A "play" refers to a fencing technique, a specific string of actions and responses. The translations of old fechtbuchs are where the term comes from. Free sparring is often known as freeplay. Plays with the sword are "swordplay." I believe it's a very good word choice and it adequately describes a length of 2 tempos. The real world meaning of play lines up with the in-game meaning of play. So, you're looking at the word with its theatrical definition in mind, but the appropriate context is the fencing definition. I expect many modern RPG players unfamiliar with HEMA will read it the way you did. Similarly I think most will see "fencing" and think not of real fighting with real weapons but of sport fencing. I think that's okay because these games can spark an interest in HEMA, and it's good to use terms associated with it.

For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ-G63XygpU

Bingo.

Also, the other options were things like:
> Round
> Turn
> Phase
And we didn't want to use a term for the melee cycle that could be confused with the term for the skirmish cycle.

If you fail a Sweep hazard roll and you're struck by the enemy's melee weapon, how do you determine where they hit you?

myanbar wrote:If you fail a Sweep hazard roll and you're struck by the enemy's melee weapon, how do you determine where they hit you?

Good catch. That should be a randomly determined hit.

Deflect says

Close-reach or shorter weapons are AC1 unless they have a complex guard or basket hilt, as are any hafted weapons when used one-handed.

I don't understand what this means.
1) Close- and Hand-reach weapons have AC 1.
Okay, good, I got that
2) unless they have a complex guard or basket hilt, then they have AC 0
Okay, good
But what is this about hafted weapons? Does that mean one-handed hafted weapons always have AC1, and that one-handed hafted weapons with a complex guard or basket hilt have AC0 instead?

2) What about your forearms? Does "unarmed" count as a "weapon" for the purpose of Deflect's AC?


3) Another question, this one a tactical one: Since Expulsion always costs AC1, and assuming Expulsion is generally "better" than Deflect, then if you're in a situation where your Deflect would be AC1, do you have any reason to perform a Deflect instead of an Expulsion? Are there maneuvers or other qualities that interact with Deflect but not Expulsion, or vice versa?

4) In the Strange maneuver:

Once the Strangle begins, it can be continued from tempo to tempo without paying additional activation cost.

This line is redundant, as it already says on pg 151 (25 of the document) that ALL grapple maneuvers can be maintained.

5) Why is Counter a Link maneuver? It doesn't Link anything. It's a weapon version of the grapple defense called Reverse. I think Counter should just be a defensive maneuver like Deflect and Expulsion. What about Counter makes it "Link"?
Also, in Counter, the effect of getting your opponent's successes in dice is italicized, while that same effect in Reverse remains in normal font.

6) Bind is written in a really weird way. It says:

Shove your shield into your opponent in such a way that it blocks off their line of attack. Opponent can only use Deflect or Expulsion if they have a shield of equal or larger size than your own, otherwise they must Dodge or Disengage.

That's really confusing wording. The way it's written it's as if a whole sentence was lost in the middle. Does it mean the Opponent can only defend against the Bind using Deflect, Expulsion, Dodge, or Disengage? It should say something like "Opponent can only defend against this attack by using Dodge or Disengage. Alternatively, if they have a shield of equal or larger size than your own, they may use Deflect or Expulsion with that shield instead."
Something like that makes it clear that the Maneuvers you're talking about are in the context of defending against the Bind attack. As it is, it sounds as if the opponent being limited to those four maneuvers is the effect of the maneuver itself.

7) I don't understand the purpose of Master-Strike. It has no benefit on an attack; the rules say to just treat it as an attack. You'd pay AC2 for nothing. It only has benefit on defense, and that benefit is to improve upon a standard Compound Link. Why doesn't Master-Strike just say it's DEF only (not "OFF or DEF"), say you perform a Deflect & Swing or Deflect & Thrust, but if your Deflect is successful you get the bonuses: your MoS as bonus dice to your follow-up Swing or Thrust, and no Disadvantage on it.
Reading Master-Strike leaves me with more questions. One: is it supposed to somehow be possible to launch two attacks in one tempo with it? That's the understanding I take from the language of "If the initial die roll is successful, you gain your MoS for an additional attack made in the same Tempo." Referring to the preceding maneuver as "the first die roll" rather than "the attack" or "the defense" implies the roll could be either of those things. This is reinforced by how it says you can make an "additional" attack. So, are you supposed to be able to use Master-Strike to attack, then follow up with another attack?
Two: If it's a Red/Red situation, do you declare this as an offense, or as a defense? If two people in Red/Red Master-Strike each other, do they count as "Defending" to one another?
Three: Are you allowed to use defenses other than Deflect, and attacks other than Swing and Thrust? The Maneuver does say you act as if you're doing a Deflect & Swing or Deflect & Thrust, not that you have the choice of doing something like a Beat or Murder Stroke instead.

8) The book says you could perform a Deflect Counter & [Bind & Strike]. How would this work in practice?
Say I attack you and garner 5 successes. Say your Deflect succeeds with 1 MoS. So you earn 1 MoS toward your [Bind & Strike] in this tempo, and 5 bonus dice to your pool in the next tempo. ([maneuver] Counter doesn't affect the current tempo, only the following.) Well, you have 1 bonus die for the current tempo, but you have two maneuvers in the [Bind & Strike]. Where does that die go? Does it go to the Bind, or do you get to choose either the Bind or the Strike, or does it magically multiply into two dice so each maneuver can have 1 bonus?
Now you perform the Bind & Strike. For the purposes of Compound, are you "attacking" or are you "defending"? If you're "attacking" then you'd perform the Bind and waste whatever dice were allocated to the Strike. If you're "defending", then I can't formulate what would happen.

9) This question is about Stomp and Compound. If you attack me with a Swing, and in response I declare a Deflect & Thrust, then you STOMP away your Swing and my Deflect, do I still roll my Thrust?

10)

The attacker may only declare a Hook, Slam, Swing, or Thrust with the shin and thigh wheels being off-limits for targeting. The defender may only choose Deflect or Expulsion utilizing the weapon affected by the wind. Either side may make use of linked maneuvers, but only using combinations of the above with the affected weapon. If you link into any other maneuver, or you link into maneuver that uses an off-hand weapon, a success will break the wind.

This maneuver contradicts itself. You're only limited to Hook, Slam, Swing, and Thrust for offense. But then it says you can Compound offensive maneuver that aren't those, even if you have just one weapon.
Now what does it mean to "link into any other maneuver"? If I Deflect & Murder Stroke with 1 die on the Murder Stroke, then could I Deflect it and just let the Wind end with the 1 die Murder Stroke? Or here's another way. If I Compound Thrust & Beat, then if my Thrust succeeds and I choose not to Beat, would the Wind still end?