Shattering Armor during refit

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
If my indestructible armor is shattered while I’m refitting it from

1) partially damaged, does that interrupt the refit because the armor value has changed?

2) 0, does that interrupt the refit even though the armor value hasn’t changed?
 

Feldor

Adept
Marshal
Refitting uses the Focus mechanic. Neither refitting nor focus have wording about being interrupted by being hit by damage, spells, or effects -- other than ones that cause loss of use of game abilities or ones that cause you to use other game abilities (like dodge).

So I don't see anything in the rules that would indicate being hit by a shatter would effect your refitting.
 

Jaerc

Artisan
Marshal
Utah Staff
The attacker should use Drain > Shatter if interrupting the Focus used to Refit is the goal.
 
Refitting uses the Focus mechanic. Neither refitting nor focus have wording about being interrupted by being hit by damage, spells, or effects -- other than ones that cause loss of use of game abilities or ones that cause you to use other game abilities (like dodge).

So I don't see anything in the rules that would indicate being hit by a shatter would effect your refitting.
I feel differently. If I am a monster with the ability to rip free from binding and I am hit with a Web, I can begin to rip free as per the ability. If, during the time of the three count, I am hit with a second Web, I am required to start over. I feel that these two situations are reasonably analogous, and that conceptually it makes far more sense that the Shatter has the effect of undoing the progress made in refitting the armor rather than no effect at all. The idea that there could be a situation where it was advantageous to have damaged armor that was mid-repair over undamaged armor feels intrinsically wrong and not rules as intended.
 

Feldor

Adept
Marshal
I feel differently. If I am a monster with the ability to rip free from binding and I am hit with a Web, I can begin to rip free as per the ability. If, during the time of the three count, I am hit with a second Web, I am required to start over. I feel that these two situations are reasonably analogous, and that conceptually it makes far more sense that the Shatter has the effect of undoing the progress made in refitting the armor rather than no effect at all. The idea that there could be a situation where it was advantageous to have damaged armor that was mid-repair over undamaged armor feels intrinsically wrong and not rules as intended.
I mean, are you sure? I think you are conflating that with the rule that if you use any skill (from "Counted Actions") or a defense requiring movement (from "Escape Binding") you have to start over. But nothing in "Counted Actions" or in "Escape Binding" seems to indicate that if you are hit by an attack or an effect that it interrupts the count. The spell duration section indicates that it just resets the spell duration, but doesn't apply an additional effect.

With that said - I was surprised that getting hit did not interrupt the refit, because I've seen people play it that way. If I'm fixing armor, and you stick a sword through it, intuitively that seems like it might interrupt any repairs. But a lot of our rules are not intuition, but rather abstraction decisions made to support this shared game we play. Realistically, you can't fix a suit of armor in a minute - even basic field repairs take much longer than that. But we play a shared game where we get to be all we can't be -- not a game where we spend 45 minutes carefully replacing broken/stretched rings in our chain shirt after a sword went through it.
 

Jaerc

Artisan
Marshal
Utah Staff
You don't need to be Focusing to Rip from Bindings. The textual difference between the Escape Binding 'counted action' & the Refiting rules 'Focus mechanic' exists, which to my eyes makes them sufficiently non-analogous. Also counted actions aren't interrupted by taking damage.

A different way to look at it which produces the same ruling as Feldor's is that taking damage from a hit during a Refit does not interrupt it.

I feel this makes clear that while Armor is in the process of being Refit it provides no protection but also is not a valid target. This is not something I see as an advantage just a game state.

[strikethrough]P. S. The indestructible armor from the initial example can not have it's armor value changed by a a Shatter for what is worth since that armor is immune.[/strikethrough]

P.P.S. If the skill user only has Shatters and they really want the Refit interrupted I'd suggest scoping out whether the Refiter is (optionally) roleplaying the use of a tool for the fix. If so Shatter it and I feel they will choose to act as thought interrupted (albeit they could choose to just start pounding away toolless).
 
Last edited:

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
P. S. The indestructible armor from the initial example can not have it's armor value changed by a a Shatter for what is worth since.thst armor is immune.
Minor note: indestructible armor is not immune to shatter. The tag just doesn’t get destroyed by shatter. The value still drops to 0, per the Shatter description.

@Dan Nickname Beshers, do you feel this warrants Marshal Discussion?
 

Azath

Newbie
Oregon Staff
Marshal
Alliance Rulebook v2.04; Focus; pg. 103 said:
There are several ways that a character’s Focus may be interrupted. These include:
• The character uses a Skill or Game Ability (other than Educated) which is not required for the ability they’re Focusing on.
• The character breaks a physical requirement of the ability (such as lowering one’s arms during a Sanctuary spell or moving away from a First Aid target) or moves faster than walking speed.
• The character loses the ability to use Game Abilities (for example, they are hit by a Drain spell).
Note that individual abilities may have additional requirements, while some may have exemptions to the above conditions (for example you can self-cast while under a Sanctuary).
Alliance Rulebook v2.04; Refitting; pg. 80 said:
“Refitting” a suit of armor takes a complete uninterrupted minute of Focus during which you can perform no Game Abilities. The player must kneel or crouch and adjust their armor to represent the act of refitting. If you are refitting someone else’s armor, the target must kneel while the other character roleplays fixing the armor. This might involve pulling out a small bag of tools and accessories, or at least by pounding on the armor or otherwise taking actions to make it clear that you are repairing armor and not just kneeling down.
Refitting is not a process where if you go 75% of the way, you have 75% of the armor value, or if you're at half armor then you only have a base refit of 30 seconds; it's all or nothing. There's nothing inherent about shatter that affects that count. It just reduces your current armor to 0 and destroys physical, destructible armor tags.

Focus mechanics have specific conditions stated that interrupt them. The armor that is in the process of a refit being affected by a shatter is not a listed condition that interrupts an armor refit. It only becomes relevant if the armor tag is destructible, which makes the refit moot.

I feel this makes clear that while Armor is in the process of being Refit it provides no protection but also is not a valid target.
Is there a source for this?
 
Last edited:

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Armor that’s being refit is absolutely a valid target; this has been expressly confirmed by @Polare.
 
To be clear, I do not have any misapprehension that Refitting can be done partially, stopped, and then resumed from the point of stoppage. In Alliance rules something must be fully successfully to have any success: 100 Obliterate does nothing to you if your card says you're immune to damage in even numbers, and you must complete your three count or minute or whatever or nothing happens and the ability is, if applicable, expended; the only extant exemption to this is the introduction of animation effects pausing death timers which is entirely a customer service decision. That sentences was too long and I am sorry, but not sorry enough to fix it.

That is actually the point of my interpretation: a refit in progress on a suit of armor should not allow you to mitigate the effects of a Shatter. If the other version is correct, then I am able to game the system by beginning a refit prior to a Shatter effect if I know one is coming. I'm not arguing that that is a common occurrence, but I am arguing that it should not resolve that way. If I am wearing a 50 point suit of armor that I can refit in 15 seconds, then I am functionally immune to damage that arrives at less than or equal to 10 points of damage over three seconds if I choose to simply kneel and constantly refit. If I am doing this in a doorway with archers/casters behind me this starts to become silly.

I feel pretty strongly that this is a case where the fundamental assumption that you cannot successfully repair armor that is being actively damaged did not even occur to the writers as something that could be called into question, because if someone had said to me that the new system would allow for this I would have made every other owner miserable until it got changed.
 

Jaerc

Artisan
Marshal
Utah Staff
@Azath My source is my interpretation that one takes damage to Body when one is hit during a Refit, which would otherwise hit the Armor. I couldn't personally seen the ruling that @Draven mentions via searching, though I obviously have fun faith in @Polare.

I agree that it is likely this circumstances wasn't foreseen by designers but we can't know their intention so must work from text. I don't see support in the text for your interpretation.

I feel that it only "gets silly" under a series of niche situations that include knowing in advance what skills are coming and the when facing foes whose only option to is Shatter (which feels unlikely).

An opinion I hold is that a character chooses to spend all their time kneeling to Refit to "block" for other is they are choosing an action set that is likely to be less effective than most others that could be taken, so the harm that arises is minimal to non-existent.

@Dan So to be clear your interpretation is that a Shatter does both cases 1 & 2?
 
I was one of the designers; I owned Alliance New Hampshire until 2017 and was heavily involved in the design process for the 2.0 rules. We never talked about whether or not armor could be refit while being actively damaged. If that had been raised as a deliberate change to the rules I would have strongly objected. I assure you my intention was not to allow someone with a large suit of armor to become immune to damage.

Things like that create loopholes that can be abused in the name of the rules as written, which very often does lead to players taking advantage of those loopholes in a way that forces ARC or Ownership to get involved. It may seem niche or harmless to you, but you are not actively trying to gain a game advantage from it. This feels to me very much like the old interaction between Magic Storm and Spell Store items that could allow any number of people to cast the same Magic Storm, saving it indefinitely. It was a quirk of design that no one noticed during writing until it cropped up in play and was very obviously unreasonable.

Shatter should effectively stop a refit in progress and require it to begin again, regardless of the suit of armor's condition at the beginning of the refit. That is, I think, the simplest interaction, the one that will make the most sense to the most players, and the least likely to lead to abusive behavior. If the rules as written make that unclear which unfortunately appears to be the case, I further posit that they should be updated to clearly indicate that anything that damages the armor or the person wearing the armor interrupts the refit and, if the refit was using a limited resource, expends that resource without benefit.
 

Feldor

Adept
Marshal
Much as I try to avoid it because I think we should be focusing on making the current rules correct and clear, I took a look at the old rules.
There was not a change in wording (with one small exception) from the last rulebook published pre-2.0. The only change was adding "of Focus" to the description, linking it to the Focus system which adds more restrictions, not less. So it makes sense that this was not brought forward as a change, because it was not a change.

With that said, you have made it clear that you and the other designers had a specific way you wanted this to work, that is not this way. We have ARC. They can issue a clarification.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
This question has been posed to ARC.

Thanks, guys.
 
Top