Common Rules Violations: Damage Verbals and Spell Incants

[most_precious_blood]

The NERO Alliance rulebook edition 3.0 states the following regarding weapon damage "verbals":

"Clear damage verbals will be enforced. If the victim cannot understand the damage called, he or she does not have to take the damage. Warriors must pronounce their verbals just like spellcasters must pronounce their spell incants."

This means that if you swing your weapon, and it contacts your target before you are finished calling your damage verbal, the target is not affected by that particular swing.

This applies to melee weapon swings. However, in the case of thrown weapon attacks, bow attacks, and crossbow attacks; the damage verbal must be fully incanted before the thrown weapon, arrow packet, or bolt packet leaves your hand, otherwise the attack is not considered valid.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The NERO Alliance edition 3.0 rulebook states the following regarding spell incants:

"To cast a spell, the caster must have a spell packet in hand. The hand and arm with the spell packet in it must be free. Hands that are holding something else, are broken, or are tied or bound either physically or with a binding spell are not considered free."

"The caster must then correctly recite the short phrase associated with the spell in a voice loud enough to be heard by the intended target. Within two seconds after finishing the verbal, the caster must then throw the packet and hit the target or the target's direct possessions, including cloaks, shields, weapons, pouches, or a carried object. You must finish the verbal before throwing the packet, otherwise the spell is blown."

"... you cannot fake a spell incantation, or otherwise bluff the casting of a spell. You also cannot start the incantation to a spell you do not have memorized. Spellcasters lose the power to cast a spell as soon as the incant has begun. You cannot start the incantation for a spell, change your mind, and then still have that spell. You must wait until the following game-day to restudy and store the mystic power to cast the spell again."

If you begin an incant for a spell you do not have memorized, for example "With Mystic Force..." fully intending to cast a pin (yet realizing you have no more memorized partway through) you will lose a spell of the same effect group (Such as web) from your memory, as if you had cast (and failed) that spell instead.

If after successfully completing an incant and releasing a spell you wish to begin immediately casting another spell, you must have the packet for the next spell you wish to cast in hand before beginning your next spell incant.

The packet must be in the hand you intend to cast the spell with, and you cannot switch the packet to your other hand in mid-incant to circumvent this rule and thus "speed-cast" out of your "cauliflower hand".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The NERO Alliance edition 3.0 rulebook states the following regarding Alchemy Gasses:

"Before throwing the packet, the user must announce <Type> gas poison-- for example Sleep gas poison. This phrase simulates preparing the gas. Even though the verbal is not in-game so even a silenced or mute character may use one. If the verbal is not said properly then the attack is unsuccessful as the gas was not prepared properly."

In the case that the incant is either incorrectly, or incompletely stated, the gas globe is used up in the attempt.

If after successfully completing a verbal and releasing a gas packet you wish to begin immediately preparing another gas, you must have the packet for the next gas poison you wish to throw in hand before beginning your next alchemy verbal.

The packet must be in the hand you intend to use the alchemy with, and you cannot switch the packet to your other hand in mid-incant to circumvent this rule and thus "speed-gas" out of your "cauliflower hand".

As alchemy gas globes are considered in-game items, alchemy gasses may be thrown from a hand which holds other gas globes. Gas globes are the only in-game items which may be held in your hand while throwing gas globes. For example: You may not throw gas globes from a hand that is also wielding a sword.

Repeated or intentional violations of these rules policies will result in a verbal warning, or disciplinary action at the marshall's discretion.

If you have any questions, or comments regarding this rules policy, reply below or pm a NERO Alliance Seattle marshall.

In Service,
-Gideon

 

[Kauss]

"As alchemy gas globes are considered in-game items, alchemy gasses may be thrown from a hand which holds other gas globes. Gas globes are the only in-game items which may be held in your hand while throwing gas globes. For example: You may not throw gas globes from a hand that is also wielding a sword."

Um where does it make this clear? I ask as in the last rules it was clearly stated in the addendium that this was not the case, and you could use gas globes (Unlike spell packets) in a hand with other things in it. In the alchemy section it does not seem to say yes or no on the matter.

 

[Kauss]

"As alchemy gas globes are considered in-game items, alchemy gasses may be thrown from a hand which holds other gas globes. Gas globes are the only in-game items which may be held in your hand while throwing gas globes. For example: You may not throw gas globes from a hand that is also wielding a sword."

Um where does it make this clear? I ask as in the last rules it was clearly stated in the addendium that this was not the case, and you could use gas globes (Unlike spell packets) in a hand with other things in it. In the alchemy section it does not seem to say yes or no on the matter.

Update, looking over spell packets it is clearly stated you have to have your hands free, the alchemy section doesnt seem to have anything on it. I will be checking more as it goes, but it could take a bit

 

[Polare]

If you begin an incant for a spell you do not have memorized, for example "With Mystic Force..." fully intending to cast a pin (yet realizing you have no more memorized partway through) you will lose a spell of the same effect group (Such as web) from your memory, as if you had cast (and failed) that spell instead.

Er... Where is it stated that it's the same "effect group"? I'd always thought "blown" meant you lose something of the same or higher level if you had it. Otherwise it would seem open to a bit of abuse? i.e. mess up a Web, but you only lose a pin? Losing the same or higher level if possible seems a bit more balanced.

How would this work if you have no other spells from the same effect group?

-Bryan

PS thanks for these clarification threads, they're quite useful

 

[Dante]

alrighty...here's something ive been wondering

lets say im a fighter with a prof in each hand, dual wielding short swords. If I attack my opponent correctly, calling "3 normal", and then swing both swords at the same time, one at his shoulder, the other at his ankle, and one is blocked, but the other hits, what happens?
what if both connect?

by the letter of the rule, if one hits, I ought to deal damage, since there is no rule against swinging a weapon without a damage call
or did i miss something in the book?

 

[Tharval]

The NERO Alliance rulebook edition 3.0 states the following regarding weapon damage "verbals":

"Clear damage verbals will be enforced. If the victim cannot understand the damage called, he or she does not have to take the damage. Warriors must pronounce their verbals just like spellcasters must pronounce their spell incants."

This means that if you swing your weapon, and it contacts your target before you are finished calling your damage verbal, the target is not affected by that particular swing.

Isn't this open to a large amount of abuse? It is fully within the rules to intentional take a weapon blow as long as the location being hit is not illegal (i.e stepping in front of a blow to take a hit for somone else). Under this rule I can have no weapon, but continually move my arm to intercept a blow before the verbal has landed. It's even worse in the case of a spell strike, as I can then parry a blow with a weapon assuming the verbal hasn't been finished. Would this allow me to state a damage call and then wait 1.5 seconds to swing, as can be done with a spell?

Further, while I can see how that interpretation can be obtained from the wording, it doesn't seem like the intent. That paragraph is talking about pronouncing verbals clearly so they can be understood, not about the timing of the verbal.

The introductory paragraph of the Calling Damage section states:
"Whenever you swing a weapon in NERO, you must call out the amount of damage you do with that weapon, followed by the attributes your attack may have"

I would think that if timing was critical it would be called out here, as opposed to being inferred from a statement in another section.

A bit less specific is the example provided concerning vorpal calls:
"For example, Dreyfus has a longsword which does 2 points of damage, so he calls out "2 Normal!" with every hit."

Based on that phrasing it sounds like the call is being made simultaneously with a hit. If the call needed to be completed before the hit I would think it would be stated as:
"...so he calls out "2 Normal!" before every hit."

Does this come from the ARC? If so, then so be it.

 

[Anonymous]

Just to point out what we're talking about here...

"Two Ice, Two Ice" which is, quite possibly, the fastest weapon call in the game, can easily sound like "twice, twice."

The point is that the damage you are swinging be clearly understood by the person you are hitting and that your damage call be finished prior to your blow coming into contact with their personage.

Actively blocking weapon shots can, indeed, reduce the time for your verbal to finish. The key words here are "actively blocking." Your opponent is putting their weapon out there to defend themselves from whatever you're swinging. They understand that you are trying to inflict damage and are trying to negate your damage before it lands.

Blocking with your body, however, is not nero-safe combat. Expect to get called on unsafe combat and rhino-hiding (and possibly poor sportsmanship) if you're trying to block shots with your body... unless you're some crazy suicidal type of character who plans to fall down a lot, that is.

Just as you cannot throw two packets at once and have which ever lands deliver the effect, you cannot swing two weapons at once and have which ever lands deliver the effect. NERO has no rules for "shotgunning."

~Sarah

 

[Tharval]

Just to point out what we're talking about here...

"Two Ice, Two Ice" which is, quite possibly, the fastest weapon call in the game, can easily sound like "twice, twice."

The point is that the damage you are swinging be clearly understood by the person you are hitting and that your damage call be finished prior to your blow coming into contact with their personage.

Actively blocking weapon shots can, indeed, reduce the time for your verbal to finish. The key words here are "actively blocking." Your opponent is putting their weapon out there to defend themselves from whatever you're swinging. They understand that you are trying to inflict damage and are trying to negate your damage before it lands.

Blocking with your body, however, is not nero-safe combat. Expect to get called on unsafe combat and rhino-hiding (and possibly poor sportsmanship) if you're trying to block shots with your body... unless you're some crazy suicidal type of character who plans to fall down a lot, that is.

Just as you cannot throw two packets at once and have which ever lands deliver the effect, you cannot swing two weapons at once and have which ever lands deliver the effect. NERO has no rules for "shotgunning."

~Sarah

It's not blocking normal weapon strikes with a weapon that causes the problem. It's intercepting a spellstrike blow before the verbal is completed which seems wrong in this case. Granted, the swinger of the spellstrike could just complete the verbal before the swing is started and thus avoid this problem.

I'm not questioning the need for clear verbals. I just don't see how the text of the rules supports that the verbal must be completed before the blow lands and would like to know to origin of this ruling.

 

[Shikar al'Basteua]

There is a measure of reason to be taken into account as far as this rule is concerned.

The intent is that it should be immediately obvious how much damage/what effect you are taking from a given swing with a given weapon.

Any action (or lack thereof) on the part of the attacker which causes this information to be muddled or not communicated (such as a misspoken, late, or hurried verbal or swinging multiple weapons at once) should nullify the attack; at the same time, however, the defender may not (as illustrated above) act in such a manner as to force a blown verbal by intercepting the attack before the verbal is completed.

The rule of thumb is to always speak your incant/verbal *prior* to completing your swing/releasing your throw, not after.

-Dan

 

[Maxondaerth]

I have a mild issue with this, and it can be summed up in three words:

Seventy Magic Assassinate

or even better:

One hundred and ten magic assassinate

How often, when sneaking up on an unsuspecting victim, do you think I could get off such an incant and land the blow SAFELY without the person spinning around so that by the time I hit them their shoulders are no longer facing me?
The way I have always been told, and have followed, about the rule was this. Land the blow in between the number called and the damage type and the damage type call will act to slow your weapon strikes down to a reasonable speed, especially when using two weapons. I've been using and following this guideline for over seven years now, and have never once been called for machine gunning, and the only time anyone's ever asked me for a clarification on what I called was either while getting hit by multiple people or they weren't sure if I said "seventeen" or "seventy" (and they usually wish it was seventeen). I agree some people are getting a little rushed and we should work on that, but let's use some good gaming sense along the way.

Jeff

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, i'm ready for the geez newbie what a dumb question response but wouldn't it be easier for you to call the damage after ya hit the person and they call the hit? Would save alot of hassle, and if yer afraid that people will rabbit punch don't let people strike again until the hit is called and acknowledged, and points taken off. Wouldn't work for spells but for fighter combat it would be so much easier. I hit so and so, who says owie, and i reply 1 normal or 20 magic or whatever. That way there's no doubt from either party that a shot was counted .He/she acknowledged the hit, i replied with damage, and we fight on. Simple.

 

[Kauss]

Ok, i'm ready for the geez newbie what a dumb question response but wouldn't it be easier for you to call the damage after ya hit the person and they call the hit? Would save alot of hassle, and if yer afraid that people will rabbit punch don't let people strike again until the hit is called and acknowledged, and points taken off. Wouldn't work for spells but for fighter combat it would be so much easier. I hit so and so, who says owie, and i reply 1 normal or 20 magic or whatever. That way there's no doubt from either party that a shot was counted .He/she acknowledged the hit, i replied with damage, and we fight on. Simple.

The problem is, that allows to much damage/carrier changing. Like for example, if I have an elemental blade up, I could (in that case) use the extra damage and carrier after I got a clean hit, instead of the way its intended, for one shot, hit or miss. Also the NPC needs to know what to call in responce, and they cant untill they know damage and carrier. They could say taken, no effect, reduced, but they dont know what to say untill damage is noted. Hence why its call/hit/effect. Tho I agree, normaly its call simo with the hit, not before, but it looks like the details are being talked about.

 

[Anonymous]

See, elemental blade threw me for a loop. I don't even know what that is but it doesn't sound very friendly. It's just kinda wierd knowing how bad a blow is gonna hurt you before it even lands. And calling out all the shots that are blocked and everything, i just think it would be easier to have the person with the special ability or one time hit or whatever to let ya know first, but for ordinary strikes why call out all those misses, or blocks, or whatever. Ya gotta kinda go on the honour system a lil but it should work out ok. It would make backstabbing alot more effective...feeling a lil nudge in the lower kidney area followed by a chuckling assassin telling you the damage. How can you really sneak up on someone when you gotta tell em how much damage yer daggers about to do to their liver. I'm sure it can be done but i think the surprise factor is cut down by telling em first. But, if the rules say ya gotta tell em before ya strike em then that's the way it's gonna be.

 

[Kauss]

Well since backstabing was brought up, that does become a problem. If I have to announce a waylay before I let it go, I will not get it off, since legaly you can say "expecting waylay" anytime before the hit. Back attacks themselves arent so effected, but as noted, assasinates may be blown uselessly becouse of the warning, making the lack of a PTD useless.

 

[Balryn]

Calling the verbal after landing a blow has landed also changes the dynamic of combat on special abilities. Since blows in NERO aren't the heaviest of shots and they allow thrusting, first shots don't always look like shots unless they have a verbal.


Basic example-

Someone taps you on the shoulder with a sword and then says "Hey, wait a minute"

Someone taps you on the shoulder with a sword and then says "12 Death"

In one case, you assumed they weren't swinging for damage and just tapping you. In the other- you die. Hearing the verbal with the swing greatly affects whether or not the shot will be blocked. Normally you would block all shots if you were capable, but if you are defending against a florentine fighter or multiple opponents (or someone who has a cause serious vorpal) then you may take his "4 normal" and block the "14 normal" instead from the other hand.

In addition to that idea, there is a fairly common trend to change the amount of damage one does swinging in combat at higher level. I have seen a good number of higher fighter types call 3-4 for the first couple hits and then grind them away swinging 8+.



All of the prepare to die skills require the verbal first (just like spells). If calls were made after for some shots, there would have to be a list for spellstrikes, vorpals (poisons), carriers, enchanted blades and whatever other blade effects there are.

However- In the waylay / assassinate issue it would definately kill both abilities to require the verbal first and I think they should rewrite the wording slightly for both of those abilities to have an exception, otherwise they are effectively useless.

In the end it all comes down to good sportsmanship and the honor system, but the rules regarding it are pretty vague.

~Barry

 

[Anonymous]

In the end it all comes down to good sportsmanship and the honor system, but the rules regarding it are pretty vague.

Common rules infractions happen because we aren't self-policing enough. They're the little things here and there that we do all the time. Notice no one's commenting on the quivers thread.

NERO relies heavily on the honor system.

 

[Balryn]

Common rules infractions happen because we aren't self-policing enough. They're the little things here and there that we do all the time. Notice no one's commenting on the quivers thread.

NERO relies heavily on the honor system.

I think the primary difference is that the archery rules are somewhat "logistical" in nature and that they don't affect combat in the heat of battle.

This issue came up a long, long time ago and was never resolved (I think that it was even pre-split) and it would be nice to see a uniform answer in the rules, especially for the assassinate / waylay issue. Not taking hit's (or delivering hits you thought were valid) and debating it with another player on the field is far more aggravating for most people.

I personally only call people on unclear melee verbals if they are "machine gunning" or are not saying verbals clearly when they speed it up too fast. The "two ice" is a good example, but other ones I've heard are people dropping the "e" on eviscerate and also speeding the words together overall.

~Barry

 

[Shikar al'Basteua]

As a counter to the assassinate/waylay doomsayers, I would like to point out that I have always completed those verbals prior to landing my blow, and have been able to land nearly every assassinate and waylay I have ever thrown.

Also, you cannot say "expecting waylay" in order to prevent a waylay attack for which the attacker's verbal/swing has already begun. Consider turning around, ducking, or otherwise attempting to block the shot you now know is coming instead of trying to abuse the rules to get out of it.

That said, I have requested a clarification on weapon verbal timing from the Alliance Rules Commitee. Please feel free to continue discussion in the meantime. For now we will be adhering to the rules as posted at the start of this thread, though things may change pending a contradictory ruling from the ARC.

-Dan

 

[Shikar al'Basteua]

Per the following ARC clarification, the ruling stands as originally written.

-Dan

Yes, the intent is that your verbal should be clearly stated and complete before the swing is landed...

There are some stupidly long verbals that as an NPC I'd not complain about.. IE "150 silver assassinate"... if the strike hit me somewhere in the middle of the word "assassinate"... by the time you get the 150 out the NPC knows you're there and is half turning around.. which sucks... But technically yes, you still have to finish the verbal before landing any strike.

--Luther

 

[most_precious_blood]

Throwing Gas Globes

Gas globes are not allowed to be thrown from a hand with a weapon in it for safety reasons first and foremost. If I wind up to throw, and stab someone behind me with a face-thrust because I wanted to nail "goblin A" with a sleep, I'll feel really bad... it would also probably happen repeatedly.

You could also punch someone in the face trying to handle both tasks (Wielding and pitching)

I have seen both of these happen. Not just in NERO, but other games as well.

I believe th spirit of the rules was to allow an alchemy user to throw alchemy while holding other alchemies in her throwing hand, not to allow rogues (or alchemists) an advantage against several skills, spells, and abilites<and a rule or two>. You'll note that the hands are an illegal target, but it says nothing about alchemy packets... What if I struck all of the gas globes in your hand while you're trying to melee me with the sword in that very same hand? This opens a portal to the elemental plane of logistical nightmare.

As for assassinates, I am with Dan on this, I have used them for almost a decade... I have never had a problem with landing them after my incant has finished, and as I understand it, this has always been the intent. If I got hit with an assassinate mid-incant, I wouldn't take it, as it wasn't a valid blow.

In Service,
-Gideon