Waylay and Armor questions

Allrighty, I got one for you. I built my armor for Roger a while ago (using the book on hand). That suit of armor, if you don't recall, is a series of 87 belts. One of them goes around the neck, similar to a collar. Hanging from the back of this belt is "the fox blocker" a piece of studded leather which hangs from the collar to right between the shoulder blades.
Now, the original intent was to specifically put armor over the oog 'actual waylay zone'. The collar sits below my jawbone, so it does cover the 'back of the neck' but the belt is only like an inch wide. It does not provide any armor points for the purposes of covering any of the head/neck zones. It is obvious from looking at the armor that the peice serves no other function then to provide protection to a 'waylay-esq' area, but the studs only appear on the 'fox blocker' itself, not the collar. What's the waylay protection on that?
It's been 2 points every time I've ran it by anyone, and that's generally waht I'd give it, but it occurs to me that its one of those things that runs into the 'no armor but waylay protection' cases, and has a nebulous location.
 
Personally, I'd love to see it brought to the ARC for a spirit clarification. The text is there, but I think we've definitely got a spirit not so obvious situation (again... fancy that).

There are just so many DISadvantages to actually wearing a helm that I fail to see why someone can get a better benefit from not actually wearing one over someone who does.
 
I think the spirit of the rule is pretty clear on this one. If you cover the "waylay area" (back of neck) with armor, then you get protection from a waylay. The better that armor is (leather/studded/plate) the better the protection you receive.

I think it would against the spirit of the rule to have someone wearing a plate helm that doesn't cover the back of the neck, but has a thin strip of leather hanging off it to cover the back of the neck. Since it's technically one piece, and the whole of it is by far more plate than leather, you receive armor and you possibly receive plate rated waylay protection.

That would be against the spirit of the rules. Having a gorget protect you from waylays is much more in line with the spirit.
 
As I said, I'd like to hear what the ARC has to say. After all, it's not like we haven't misinterpretted the rules before.
 
It's also true that we've been right about rules while the rest of the nation was wrong. I refer you to "spell crafting".

The thing here is a matter of personal choice for someone designing/wearing armor. It bugs me no end to have something dangling back there and pulling my helm back, especially if it also covers my ears cause I already don't hear so good. So, if I want I can wear a plate skullcap and get my max armor potential, but not get waylay protection from the helm, and that's my choice. Now, as someone else stated, if I wanted to put on a plate gorget, I won't get any armor points for it, but will get waylay protection. Again, all good, I just am choosing my personal fit of armor and the way I want it to feel/look. It is good to know clearly how to go about getting whatever benefits I want from my costume though, so having it pointed out and clarified is very helpful, Bryan. Thanks!
 
Solomon Maxondaerth;18949 said:
It's also true that we've been right about rules while the rest of the nation was wrong. I refer you to "spell crafting".
Click to expand...

No offense, but there are two pages citing head as the location for waylay protection (27 and 29) and only one for neck specifically. The armor section on 27 goes so far as to state that if you don't cover at least a 3rd you get no points for the location, and only half points for half the location.

We often award bracers full points for the forearm/hand location, but that location is the fingertips to the elbow. Most bracers only cover half this. I'm good with us breaking every single section up individually, but if we're going to give full benefit for partial coverage on one location, we should do it for all locations to remain consistent.
 
None taken, I was just further illustrating by example the ruling handed down by our Head of Rules, which means that IS the rule. Also, I could believe that they put it in that way to provide the possibility of say a Scholar who can only get 12 pts of armor benefit anyway, wearing a chain vest and bracers, not needing a helm at all, but wanting waylay protection, so they wear a gorget (which has no relation to any armor locations since it isn't the head or the face really) and get waylay protection without going over the amount of armor they can legally phys rep and get benefit from.
Along those lines, what if I am a scholar and have 10pts of Arcane Armor, could I then wear a plate Gorget in order to get protection from waylay 3 since it's unrelated to actual armor but does provide waylay protection?
 
2 things:

One, I've asked for this to be taken to the ARC for clarification already. I'd do it myself but Scott the overzealous mod banned our IP.

Two, if you're a scholar, why not bust the extra reagents and difficulty for the waylay 3 on your AA instead of wearing something?
 
Posts split off for clarity of discussion.

One - Granted. Until a superceding ruling is given, though, Bryan's should stand as the interpretation the marshals are expected to enforce, I would expect.

Two - Any number of IG reasons, including resource availability, ability of the caster to create such, or even whether or not that 10pt AA was a found item rather than a built one.
 
I don't have a source to cite at the moment (being a bit sick and consequently unmotivated to go find a link to one at the moment) but it was my understanding that rules issues being brought to the ARC should go through the head of rules anyway. Then again that could just be new rules suggestions.
 
There are ARC members who have stated that they are willing to take requests/proposals/etc. directly...
 
Derek Ironhammer;18976 said:
I don't have a source to cite at the moment (being a bit sick and consequently unmotivated to go find a link to one at the moment) but it was my understanding that rules issues being brought to the ARC should go through the head of rules anyway. Then again that could just be new rules suggestions.
Click to expand...

Specifically, new rules proposals are expected to go through a chapter's HoR position for initial vetting. You *can* send them directly to ARC, but it has been "strongly suggested" by various ARC members on the HQ boards that a more feasible method is to go through your HoR.

-Bryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top