.10 - Unintended Consequences of Targeting Rules

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I'd be okay with that, though I'd still want PTD calls to come back.
 

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
Re: garb vs Shatter. I think folks are over-thinking this ... a lot :)

Think of it this way: You get hit by a weapon swing. We already judge "would this have caused damage?" if it hits a cloak - i.e. if it hits a cloak but also hits (or would have hit) your leg, you take the swing. If it hits the cloak but wouldn't have hit "you", it's a garb hit and doesn't count. We do this in 1.3 (and pretty much every version of Alliance that I've ever played).

The intent of Shatter vs Armor is the same thing. You get a Shatter swung at you. It hits your cloak. Would you have taken damage if it were a damaging swing? If so, it hits your Armor and shatters it. Would you have called "Garb" and not taken damage? OK, in that case it doesn't hit your Armor. It really isn't any more complicated than that. We do this for every single damaging weapon swing already and make that judgement; it's no different with Shatter trying to hit someone's armor.

If folks have suggestions for better wording, please put them here!

Thanks,
Bryan Gregory
ARC
 
I made my suggestion earlier in this thread and I stand by it. I think optional "Prepare to Die" that alters hit check from weapon rules to packet rules would solve the problem neatly, simply, and in a way that balanced the skill.

-MS
 

MondayMcGee

Scholar
San Francisco Staff
Similarly, is it the intent that a small handheld item such as a wand is unable to be disarmed or shattered by a martial skill?
 

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
This made sense when all you had to do was hit the person and call a target.

With the way the system is setup now, you have to hit the item.

In effort to better understand: So what would I do if I am wearing physical armor (say, a Chain Mail Shirt and some forearm guards) and I get hit by Shatter in the leg, but I'm not wearing any leg armor. Does it still effect my armor even though it didn't actually hit any of my physical armor? If so, it feels like a really weird amalgamation of the old rules and the new and is inherently confusing because for other things, you have to hit the item, but for armor it would be, "hit their physical armor with shatter, it breaks, but also hit them in the leg where there is no armor and it breaks"?
An Alliance suit of armor - physical, Natural, Arcane, whatever - is an abstracted covering that protects against any hit that does damage to a person. We don't tell people "if you get hit on your breastplate, you take damage to armor; if you get hit in a gap on your side where your breastplate doesn't cover, you take damage directly to Body Points" (note that there *are* LARPs where this is how armor works!). The same should be understood to work for a Shatter weapon attack.

I'll see how we can clear up the wording, but this is certainly the intent (and is based entirely on how Alliance Armor Points work against weapon attacks already). Perhaps "If the Shatter attack would have caused Body or Armor Point damage were it a damaging attack, it will affect the target's currently equipped Armor" or the like?

-Bryan Gregory
ARC
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I'll see how we can clear up the wording, but this is certainly the intent (and is based entirely on how Alliance Armor Points work against weapon attacks already). Perhaps "If the Shatter attack would have caused Body or Armor Point damage were it a damaging attack, it will affect the target's currently equipped Armor" or the like?

-Bryan Gregory
ARC
Wording it that way would be worse.

As an example, if you have a wand on your belt, and I swing for 5 Normal, and I hit your wand (on your belt, not in your hand), it does damage to you. But if I call a Shatter, it destroys the wand.

Shield on your back? That would normally be damage, but a Shatter would destroy the shield, not the armor.

If you used the wording you provided, it means that I couldn't Weapon Shatter anything that's not handheld. I'm not sure I like that, because maybe someone wants to get the jump on an unsuspecting target and shatter the weapon on their hip before they can draw it.

Calling a target will -always- make the intent clearer. Always.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
An Alliance suit of armor - physical, Natural, Arcane, whatever - is an abstracted covering that protects against any hit that does damage to a person. We don't tell people "if you get hit on your breastplate, you take damage to armor; if you get hit in a gap on your side where your breastplate doesn't cover, you take damage directly to Body Points" (note that there *are* LARPs where this is how armor works!). The same should be understood to work for a Shatter weapon attack.

I'll see how we can clear up the wording, but this is certainly the intent (and is based entirely on how Alliance Armor Points work against weapon attacks already). Perhaps "If the Shatter attack would have caused Body or Armor Point damage were it a damaging attack, it will affect the target's currently equipped Armor" or the like?

-Bryan Gregory
ARC
Similarly, is it the intent that a small handheld item such as a wand is unable to be disarmed or shattered by a martial skill?
Bryan, you missed this question.
 

Melimir

Newbie
Asheville Staff
And everyone's complaining fighters need a buff.

All hail our new equipment destroying overlords.
 

Melimir

Newbie
Asheville Staff
Those people with their equipment getting destroyed are probably other Fighters.
If by fighters, you mean NPCs with weapons I'd agree. I've said it before in other threads. Alliance is a PvE game at it's core, not a PvP game.

Edit: With the obvious exception of sanctioned fights such as tournaments.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
If by fighters, you mean NPCs with weapons I'd agree. I've said it before in other threads. Alliance is a PvE game at it's core, not a PvP game.
I mean that NPC’s use character templates and abilities. “Add PC skills” appears on many cards. Or, normal PC race, PC class NPC’s, like bandits, pirates, mercenaries, etc. A very common build base is Fighter.

So no, I mean Fighters. PC’s on the receiving end of the same abilities they’d be capable of dishing out.

From our playtesting, nearly every PC Fighter had a magical weapon in order to playtest the Ritual sections of the packet. Otherwise there would have been no swords left. I do not expect this to translate to live play, especially for players who do not readily have access to magical equipment.
 

Melimir

Newbie
Asheville Staff
The CULTURE of the players might be PVE-centric, that doesn't make the game and its rules PVE-centric.


Also this:


I commonly used Fighter cards for NPC's when I was running plot, especially bandits and the like (or Rogues).

And remember: Whatever PC's get, NPC's get too. The only difference is I can put 8 Disarms on a card and not have to worry about having Fighter/Rogue skill Pre-reqs already bought.
Sure, but then again that is plot's responsibility to be smart and control what they put out. If the town has a stockpile of sword tags laying around, putting out a few shatters isn't as big of a deal. If magic weapons are rare, and there isn't a stockpile, hey they might have ruined the weekend for some.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
And everyone's complaining fighters need a buff.

All hail our new equipment destroying overlords.
Fighters don't need a buff. Scholars just don't need free stuff.

I can't remember the last time I faced an npc that used weapons. They usually don't breathe either.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
If by fighters, you mean NPCs with weapons I'd agree. I've said it before in other threads. Alliance is a PvE game at it's core, not a PvP game.

Edit: With the obvious exception of sanctioned fights such as tournaments.
Alliance is not Player vs environment, it's player vs Everything.
 

Muir

Fighter
Fighters don't need a buff. Scholars just don't need free stuff.

I can't remember the last time I faced an npc that used weapons. They usually don't breathe either.
Yup. Undead and constructs with claws for days.

Follow up question: Why does Shatter do damage to Indestructible armor, but not Indestructible anything else, even if it is an otherwise legal target?
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Yup. Undead and constructs with claws for days.

Follow up question: Why does Shatter do damage to Indestructible armor, but not Indestructible anything else, even if it is an otherwise legal target?
Because RDI armor always when down to zero. It was from when people had to tear armor tags when ever they got breached...which people rarely did so it was changed.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Yup. Undead and constructs with claws for days.

Follow up question: Why does Shatter do damage to Indestructible armor, but not Indestructible anything else, even if it is an otherwise legal target?
Because everything else has two states: existing and destroyed. Indestructible Armor has a third state, broken but existing. Shatter moves it to that third state.
 
Top