It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:31 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:05 pm 
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:41 pm
Posts: 34
Realm: Frozen North
As I've brought up in the Rules Rewrite threads, the armor rules as currently written don't match up with how we actually play. So, I took some time and rewrote the armor rules with the goal of matching the rules to how armor is actually treated in combat. I did write them assuming that the rules revision will pass, however, if the rules revision fails they could still be incorporated into the current BoW, with some minor changes in rule numbering and the like.

Note: Throughout, I use the word body to distinguish between armor target areas and your regular target areas (previous versions of the BoW use unarmored and armored, but in the context of this revision that distinction doesn't make as much sense). I do not mean only the torso target area, so the first revision is to change the wording of that target area.

Changes are in bold.
Proposed Rules Changes wrote:
3.3.1 Torso:

3.6. Armor:

3.6.1. Armor is a target area separate from the body target area it covers. Multiple pieces of armor covering the same body target area are considered a single target area. A single piece of armor covering multiple areas is separated into multiple target areas according to 3.3.

3.6.2. Armor must cover at least one-third of a body target area. Armor which extends continuously from a different target area is not required to cover one-third of a body target area to count as an armor target area.

3.6.3. Weapons that strike both armor and body target areas are considered to have hit the body target area.

3.6.4. The presence of armor must be easily discernible to count as armor.

3.6.5. “Armor” must be declared to acknowledge that a sufficient-force strike hit the armor but did not disable a body target area.

3.6.5.1. It is encouraged to include the target area in the declaration of armor; e.g.“left leg armor,” or “body armor.”

3.7 Hits
3.7.2.1. One hit to an unarmored target area disables that target area.
3.7.2.2. Two hits to an armored target area disable that target area.
3.7.2.2. Two hits to an armor target area delivered in a single strike (i.e. a strike with a class 2 weapon) inflicts one hit of injury on the armor target area and one hit of injury to the corresponding body target area. This is a specific exception to 3.9.

3.7.5 Subsequent hits to the same location
3.7.5.5 All subsequent hits to a disabled armor target area bypass the armor target area.


And one optional addition, to cover the case of striking an unarmored part of the limb. Optional because I have typically played that if you lose a limb the armor doesn't do anything anymore, but I have also recently learned that not everyone interprets things this way.

Optional Addition wrote:
3.7.2.1.1. One hit to a body target area with a class 1 or 2 weapon disables both the body target area and the corresponding armor target area (if any).


So, what do people think? Does this work? Does it make sense? Did I miss anything that needs to be added? This was a pretty quick first draft, so all comments are welcome.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:20 pm 
Gladiator
Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 981
On mobile, but no.

_________________
Oderint Dum Metuant


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:50 pm 
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:41 pm
Posts: 34
Realm: Frozen North
Reverend wrote:
On mobile, but no.


Alright, would you care to elaborate on why exactly you say such? Perhaps I should amend my closing questions to, what does/doesn't work and why? What should be added/removed to improve the suggestion and why?


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:23 am 
Underling
Underling
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 87
Started Fighting: 19 Apr 2009
Realm: Thunder Guard
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and board, spear
Quote:
3.6.1. Armor is a target area separate from the body target area it covers.


(1) "Target Area" is already defined in 3.1. You would have to add a definition in there for armor.

Quote:
3.1. Target Area Definitions:

3.1.1. Body – Area bounded by the base of neck (inclusive), shoulder-arm joint (inclusive), hip-leg socket (inclusive), groin, and buttocks (inclusive).
3.1.2. Arm(s) – Area bounded by the wrist (inclusive) and the shoulder-arm joint (exclusive).
3.1.3. Leg(s) – Area bounded by the ankle (inclusive) and hip-leg socket (exclusive).
3.1.4. Head – Area above the base of neck (exclusive).
3.1.5. Hand(s) – Area below the wrist (exclusive). An empty Hand is a legal Target Area. Any Injury to the Hand is considered Injury to the Arm. A Hand on a Weapon or Shield is considered part of that Weapon or Shield.
3.1.6. Feet . Area below the ankle (exclusive). A Foot is a legal Target Area if it is off the ground. Any Injury to the Foot is considered Injury to the Leg.


(2) Your new proposed rules cause a lack of clarity around ranged attacks to heads, due to the existing rules. While the end result can be figured out by reading over the rules, I feel that this makes the rules less clear rather than more clear when it comes to head shots.
Quote:
3.2.2.4. Class 4 (missile) Weapons cause two hits of Injury to a Target Area. A Class 4 Weapon striking an Armored portion of the Head causes no Injury.
3.2.2.5. Class 5 (Head only missile) cause 1 hit of Injury to an unarmored Head area. A Class 5 Weapon striking an Armored portion of the Head area causes no injury.


(3) Since head armor is now a new target area (Not part of the head) you would have to clarify that melee weapons can't strike this target area.
Quote:
3.2.3. The Head is an illegal Target Area for Class 1, 2, and 3 Weapons. The Head is a legal Target Area for Class 4 and 5 Weapons.


(4) Armored areas don't take one handed stab damage. Two-handed stab damage goes through the armored area, but keeps the armor intact (By most interpretations). Not sure how you want to address this.

There's probably a number of other issues, here, but that's a good starting point I think.

It's not a bad idea (in theory) to call armor a target area, but in practice it would take a whole ton of rewriting and analysis of existing rules to get this right.

Of course if you're pairing this with other revisions it may work out fine, but it's not compatible with the existing BoW at all.

_________________
Ranting about the BoW so you don't have to.
(More rants here: http://board.belegarth.com/viewforum.php?f=66)


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:15 pm 
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:41 pm
Posts: 34
Realm: Frozen North
Excellent points and thank you for bringing them up!

Akroth wrote:
(1) "Target Area" is already defined in 3.1. You would have to add a definition in there for armor.

I would argue that the proposed 3.6.1 is defining a new subgroup of optional target areas, but I can certainly see where the argument could be made. Perhaps add in something like "3.1.7. Armor is considered separate target areas from a combatant's target areas."

Akroth wrote:
(2) Your new proposed rules cause a lack of clarity around ranged attacks to heads, due to the existing rules. While the end result can be figured out by reading over the rules, I feel that this makes the rules less clear rather than more clear when it comes to head shots.

I really just don't see where the confusion is. Perhaps a slight reword to, "A Class 4 Weapon striking an head armor target area causes no Injury," but otherwise it seems pretty clear to me. Arrow to helmet = no hit. Ditto for Class 5. Could you explain in more detail what you found confusing?

Akroth wrote:
(3) Since head armor is now a new target area (Not part of the head) you would have to clarify that melee weapons can't strike this target area.

Excellent point. Perhaps, "3.2.3.1. The Head Armor Target Area is likewise an illegal Target Area for Class 1, 2, and 3 Weapons and a legal Target Area for Class 4 and 5 Weapons."

Akroth wrote:
(4) Armored areas don't take one handed stab damage. Two-handed stab damage goes through the armored area, but keeps the armor intact (By most interpretations). Not sure how you want to address this.

At this point it is important to note that I did write these assuming the Rules Revision would pass. Perhaps a little optimistic, but I had to pick one so I went with the one I thought was better. So, using the Rules Revision wording for stabs,
Quote:
3.5.3. Class 3 (thrusting) weapons wielded one-handed cause one hit of damage to an unarmored target area, and have no affect against an armored area.
3.5.3.1. When used two handed, Class 3 weapons bypass armor.

This neatly ties everything together. No damage to armor on one handed stabs, and the armor is completely bypassed (dealing damage directly to the underlying target area) on a two-handed stab. And since the armor is bypassed it still functions as a separate target area. This point was really one of the main issues driving me to do this rewrite of the armor rules, as under the current rules this is no way to write a rule that does this without a full armor rules rewrite.

As mentioned, I did intend to pair this with the Rules Committee Rules Revision, because honestly the current BoW is a mess and adding another patch onto it at this point (especially one of this size) would just be ridiculous. But I wanted to get the conversation started early so that hopefully all the issues can get ironed out before the next voting period. So thanks for the comments!


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:45 am 
Underling
Underling
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 87
Started Fighting: 19 Apr 2009
Realm: Thunder Guard
Favorite Fighting Styles: Sword and board, spear
Quote:
3.2.2.4. Class 4 (missile) Weapons cause two hits of Injury to a Target Area. A Class 4 Weapon striking an Armored portion of the Head causes no Injury.
Head is a target area which is now independent from armor. Thus there is no "armored portion of the head" because the head is one target area, while the head armor is an entirely separate target area. This target area would need to be defined as the area that can't take damage. Something like this might work better:
Quote:
3.2.2.4. Class 4 (missile) Weapons cause zero hits of injury when striking the head armor target area, and cause two hits of injury when striking any other target area.


3.2.2.4 needs to ensure that the entire attack is negated when it strikes head armor (Not just the injury to the head armor) - Otherwise it could be misinterpreted in a way such that 3.7.2.2 would kick in and carry the second point of damage through to the head. Probably not a problem, but something to watch out for when rewording it.

_________________
Ranting about the BoW so you don't have to.
(More rants here: http://board.belegarth.com/viewforum.php?f=66)


Top
 OfflineProfile  
 Post subject: Re: Armor Rules Rewrite
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:45 pm 
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:41 pm
Posts: 34
Realm: Frozen North
Akroth wrote:
Head is a target area which is now independent from armor. Thus there is no "armored portion of the head" because the head is one target area, while the head armor is an entirely separate target area. This target area would need to be defined as the area that can't take damage.

Part of the update would definitely have to be going through the rules with a fine toothed comb and replacing any and all instances of "armored [location] target area," with "[location] armor target area."
Akroth wrote:
3.2.2.4 needs to ensure that the entire attack is negated when it strikes head armor (Not just the injury to the head armor) - Otherwise it could be misinterpreted in a way such that 3.7.2.2 would kick in and carry the second point of damage through to the head. Probably not a problem, but something to watch out for when rewording it.

This concern actually has a very clever solution (at least I think it is clever).
3.2.2.4. Class 4 (missile) Weapons cause one hit of Injury to a Target Area. A Class 4 Weapon striking an Head Armor Target Area causes no Injury.
3.2.2.4.1. Class 4 weapons bypass all Armor Target areas except the Head Armor Target Area.
Essentially arrows are treated like two-handed stabs (except when it hits head armor), disabling a limb but not destroying the armor (after all, an arrow's cross section is way smaller than a sword's, and a sword stab doesn't destroy armor so why should an arrow?).


Top
 OfflineProfile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
GuildWarsAlliance Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net. Modified by