| The One Ring http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| Shieldwall rule: questioning a standard interpretation http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=34388 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bruceqn [ Sun May 03, 2020 6:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Shieldwall rule: questioning a standard interpretation |
An isolated dwarf loses a fight, then somehow gains a Defense point by backing into two buddies--even if they are fighting. Really? Clearly this is Rule As Written, now orthordox law...but was this intended or just taking advantage of a game mechanic? Backing away one inch is figurative, obviously. If a person loses a fight, they don't back away five feet then wait to get hit...by a sword that can no longer reach them. Silly. But as a game mechanic, it makes good sense. The fluff clarifies that the +1 Defense bonus comes from overlapping shields. Good sense. Realistic. Backing five feet into two buddies already fighting...and expecting to lock shields in a different direction? Unrealistic....with a scent of Legalistic Loopholing for an advantage that was not intended. Opinions? |
|
| Author: | Wan Shi Tong [ Thu May 07, 2020 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shieldwall rule: questioning a standard interpretation |
The question of does the rule function in a realistic manner is one that has come up repeatedly for me over the years. Like with how arcing shots from siege engines shouldn't be able to hit things standing next to a pillar of rock or a wall because that structure would realistically intercept the shot. But the rules for figuring out in the ways just need a friendly model to see the targets and for the target to not be directly under something. They don't really account for the shot's natural arc and it does come off as kind of wonky in certain instances. I think that shield wall is a rule like that. For the sake of simplicity when writing the rule it was worded like it was. Does that mean the writers didn't foresee and accept the scenario you have described from taking place? I don't think so. It was probably a consequence of the wording that they were willing to accept for the simplicity of the rule. I don't see how you could get the rule to work realistically without needing a whole paragraph to explain the very narrow circumstances the rule would function in. |
|
| Author: | bruceqn [ Sat May 30, 2020 9:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shieldwall rule: questioning a standard interpretation |
Thanks for that good response. But perhaps a FAQ could correct it, with simple clarification: "Defence bonuses from shield rules take effect during the fight itself, not after backing away." I think the bonus should apply to when the fight happens. As of now, if the model loses the fight, he does not get the bonus defense, but backs away. That's the only time he needs it! Crazy... To get a bonus intended for a front shield wall, an army needs the supporting spears to have shields as well. Expensive. Counter intuitive. Not hard to correct, I hope...? And wider consequenses: if the Herald of a King's Champion loses a fight...both lose a Defense point. And -1 for carrying a Banner...and no spears for Khazad-dum...make them easy to neutralize. The King's Champion Defense 9 is a plaster wall. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|