Disarm and Mediate

[Tantarus]

So during the playtest we did last weekend I triple disarmed a shield. The first disarm took but it took them a few seconds to drop the shield during the rest of the blows.

My question is can I mediate back the 2nd and 3rd disarm as they techniquely hit a shield that was not being held and did not resolve as they where hitting an invalid target?

For reference:

Meditate - This skill allows players to regain expended spells or attacks that missed or failed due to an incorrect incantation or invalid target. The player must spend 5 uninterrupted minutes of appropriate Focus.....




For weapon skills, a player may only regain the use of a per-day weapon attack that did not resolve in any way. This includes blockable attacks (for example, not using the Massive carrier or the Spell qualifier) that were blocked by another player’s weapon or shield and did not trigger any defenses. It also includes weapon swings that completely missed and weapon swings required to be From Behind which did not hit a target From Behind. If an attack struck an opponent and was taken or resulted in a defense being called or expended, it may not be Meditated.

 

[Draven]

As written, I'd say yes, because after the first Disarm resolves, the shield becomes an invalid target (it's no longer a held item).

But that's just my interpretation, and I'm not an authority on the intent.

Furthermore:

"If an attack struck an opponent and was taken or resulted in a defense being called or expended, it may not be Meditated.

In the scenario you detailed, the second and third Disarms were neither taken nor resulted in a defense being called or expended, which means it should be recoverable via Meditate.

 

[Gilwing]

If I drop my weapon before you strike my sword I still take the effect (was a closed loophole for when we would do such a thing to avoid a disarm). The effect should stand and the target can not pick up the weapon until the time has expired from the last disarm.

 

[Draven]

If I drop my weapon before you strike my sword I still take the effect (was a closed loophole for when we would do such a thing to avoid a disarm). The effect should stand and the target can not pick up the weapon until the time has expired from the last disarm.

I'm not sure these are related in a "spirit of the rules" sort of way.

In Tantarus' scenario, he's just trying to stick the one Disarm. In your scenario, the recipient is forced to take the one Disarm. These are separate scenarios.

 

[A.mungo]

I'm not sure these are related in a "spirit of the rules" sort of way.

In Tantarus' scenario, he's just trying to stick the one Disarm. In your scenario, the recipient is forced to take the one Disarm. These are separate scenarios.

I think it does apply. The idea of throwing your weapon or shield in the air to avoid a disarm is legitimately as similar as spamming a shield with a skill to avoid defenses. A shield being improperly wielded (held while one cannot hold it) is just as valid a target as hitting someone with a disarm who does not have the shield skill and is holding a shield (held while cannot use it), or a two handed weapon with a single hand ( -staff/bow, otherwise taking all hits delivered to an improperly held item).

Ultimately as a marshall I would rule that all hits were appropriately taken. and the counter would start after the last hit.

Alternatively with shatter, the first would destroy the shield, the second the armor, and the third would be no effect (shield, body, body for valid targets).

Utilizing this as a baseline removes a great deal of confusion, and keeps the system as similar as possible to our current set.

-Tony

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

The intention in double or triple tapping with an ability is to attempt to quickly overcome several defenses without leaving time for them to be reapplied. Putting three disarms into a shield before waiting to see if the first resolved is an investment of resources into a result. If the response was "Weapon Shield, Resist, Got It!" there would be no question about Meditate, and the intent of the attacker is the same regardless of the outcome.

With that in mind, it is my view that the second and third Disarm swings are a sunk cost, spent in the effort to ensure the effect resolves, and cannot be reclaimed by Meditate.

 

[Gilwing]

The intention in double or triple tapping with an ability is to attempt to quickly overcome several defenses without leaving time for them to be reapplied. Putting three disarms into a shield before waiting to see if the first resolved is an investment of resources into a result. If the response was "Weapon Shield, Resist, Got It!" there would be no question about Meditate, and the intent of the attacker is the same regardless of the outcome.

With that in mind, it is my view that the second and third Disarm swings are a sunk cost, spent in the effort to ensure the effect resolves, and cannot be reclaimed by Meditate.

Yep...this.
I typed out a whole bunch of stuff to support this but then realised that it was exactly what you put, so yea, this. (Thumbs up)

 

[Draven]

Alternatively with shatter, the first would destroy the shield, the second the armor, and the third would be no effect (shield, body, body for valid targets).

-Tony

This one I absolutely disagree with, because at least with Disarm they're striking the physical target. I think extending the Shield to Body will have -insane- consequences for NPCs who are trying to just break a low PP item (the shield), and accidentally also break the high PP item (Armor).

I think that's a terrible, terrible, terrible idea.

Edit: Additionally, it actually bumps up the power of Shatter for other attacks. Want to make sure you land that Eviscerate? Cool, dump that Shatter into the shield and then the Evis. Shields are easy targets, because I will dump that Evis into you before your reflexes have kicked in and realized what happened. That's the core of how double-tapping works. Making the Shield suddenly a legit target for attacks after it's shattered...that's too far. That's way too far.

 

[A.mungo]

This one I absolutely disagree with, because at least with Disarm they're striking the physical target. I think extending the Shield to Body will have -insane- consequences for NPCs who are trying to just break a low PP item (the shield), and accidentally also break the high PP item (Armor).

I think that's a terrible, terrible, terrible idea.

Edit: Additionally, it actually bumps up the power of Shatter for other attacks. Want to make sure you land that Eviscerate? Cool, dump that Shatter into the shield and then the Evis. Shields are easy targets, because I will dump that Evis into you before your reflexes have kicked in and realized what happened. That's the core of how double-tapping works. Making the Shield suddenly a legit target for attacks after it's shattered...that's too far. That's way too far.

Hyperbole: So in your scenario I can just wear shattered shields as armor all around and I no longer need to take fighter skills?

Currently if I land a skill on an item that has previously resolved successfully a disarm, shatter, or destroy the person welding the item still takes the effect. what makes you believe that has changed? While it may go against a sportsmanship policy, the rules as written still support taking a hit that hits an improperly wielded item as a hit to the body (which in the case of shatter would destroy or reduce the armor value to 0).

Is this incorrect by any written rules, or just feels incorrect, or am I way off?

-Tony

 

[Draven]

Hyperbole: So in your scenario I can just wear shattered shields as armor all around and I no longer need to take fighter skills?

False equivalency: Surrounding yourself in shield phys-reps (they aren't Shields without tags) does not equate to wearing Armor. Heck, if you're donning yourself in shield-reps, you might as well be wearing paper, cause everything is going to your sweet, sweet body points.

Currently if I land a skill on an item that has previously resolved successfully a disarm, shatter, or destroy the person welding the item still takes the effect. what makes you believe that has changed? While it may go against a sportsmanship policy, the rules as written still support taking a hit that hits an improperly wielded item as a hit to the body (which in the case of shatter would destroy or reduce the armor value to 0).

Is this incorrect by any written rules, or just feels incorrect, or am I way off?

-Tony

There's no comparison that can be made to current Shatter and Future Shatter in an actual combat scenario. Current Shatter doesn't take effect by you hitting the shield (unless you have the Massive carrier, and playing a Harkonian that could do this was awesome!), so there's no real advantage to double-tapping a shield in the current system.

Bro 1: Prepare to Die! Shatter Shield! <hits shield>, Prepare to Die! Eviscerate! <hits shield>
Bro 2: Lol, bro.

Now, sure, if you're a heck of a stick jock, you could probably deliver the PTD Shatter past the shield and against the body, but that takes a -lot- more skill, and a -lot- more time than what it will take with Future Shatter. Future Shatter will literally just require you to do

Bro 1: Shatter! <tap shield> EVISCERATE! <tap shield>

I disagree, as a Marshal, that the defending player should have -zero chance- to register that his shield is no longer a valid item to hold before a follow-up hit takes advantage of that gigantic object. Cheesiness is something that Marshals should work to prevent, and I feel that turning that gigantic object into a vulnerability is not the intent of Shatter. A player holding an item they can't defend with because they -choose- to is one thing (the polearm in one hand, Templar-tuck, carrying a body), a player holding a shattered, no longer tagged object, because it -just- broke and he didn't mentally factor it yet...that's Cheese, capital "C," and I can't defend it.

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

You can do this now with a spell strike. Yes, with 2.0 shatter it's more streamlined, but turning someone's shield into a big giant Legend of Zelda weak spot is already available to players.

And yes, Shatter/Disarm are very strong. But the mechanics are not necessarily the only knob to twist. Powerful Blows, tweaks to the Flurry rule, changes to Disarm/Shatter skills costs or prerequisites, these are all still on the table. That's why we're play testing.

 

[mythic]

This is where the Good Sportsmanship rule comes into play. Teaching your players that things like this should not happen is the job of the community. If I were to shatter a shield, I would allow the PC to register it, or call a defense, then drop the shield if it "takes". Only then would I swing something else at them.

It's one of the reasons I am for the Flurry 3 rule and just slowing down combat in general. Everyone is here to have fun and play a game. If someone is abusing the rules then the Marshals need to step in and stop that behavior and ensure going forward it does not continue.

 

[Draven]

You can do this now with a spell strike.

Would call cheese.

Would immediately consult local HoR and give my reason.

 

[A.mungo]

@Draven
The entire intent of double tapping with any effect is to mitigate stacking additional defenses before resolution.

In fact the intent of removing PTD was to stop people from being able to REACT appropriately to imminent danger.

Implying that striking a shattered shield on the body and striking a shattered shield in the hand have two different effects goes against the idea we have repeatedly been told (intention is to remove outliers).

@@mythic
By my understanding of what you are saying: We cannot expect that a new chapter opening in a remote area is going to have the same "sportsmanship" ideals or tribal understanding as the rest of us. The intention of playtesting is to discover issues and then write rules that explicitly state what is correct.

Not spamming Martial skills is covered under powerful blows. Something that we have playtested. What is implied by your statement to me is either
A. use a single effect, wait to see if it resolves, then continue to press (by default Double tapping different effects is unsportsmanlike and should be disallowed [my understanding of your post, probably not your intention])

B. Shields are specifically special outliers in that if they are using a shield and are hit by effect a or b they must be allowed time to adjust between being further pressed by effects or else you are acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.

This is easily solved by making it explicit in the rules

"Continued effects hitting a shield, weapon, or item that has been disarmed, or destroyed within the last x time frame will be considered unresolved"

"Continued effects hitting a shield, weapon, or item that has been disarmed, or destroyed within the last x time frame will be considered resolved, but against an ineligible target"

"Continued effects hitting a shield, weapon, or item that has been disarmed , or destroyed within the last x time frame will be considered resolved as if striking the hand or body part the item is currently held in as if it wasn't there."

"Continued effects hitting a shield, weapon, or item that has been disarmed, or destroyed within the last x time frame isn't explicitly against the rules, but it IS unsportsmanlike and you should know better."

This will leave me on the field explaining to our players that we knew it was an issue during our playtests and chose not to clarify it, or more realistically, it being handled differently chapter to chapter.

Leaving it unstated has, as we have seen here, left it open to great amounts of interpretation.

I believe due to this, it would be best to clarify a resolution system unilaterally so as to avoid marshall interpretation of the nebulous idea of "sportsmanship"

For what it's worth, it is my opinion that combat speed in established chapters such as NH and combat speed in chapters with a newer player base such as in Asheville are in no ways equal. Calling someone on a sportsmanship call becomes player base specific, and should remain a regional ideal, not an expectation of Marshalls for unclear effect resolution rules per the ARB(the item that we should be making our calls based upon).

Sorry for the long post.

TLR

Please explicitly state intention for resolution of effects hitting a recently destroyed or disarmed item. This will better clarify resolution rules which affect character abilities such as Meditate, and Defensive abilities that trigger on hit.


Edited because on rereading the post I realized I was coming across unpleasantly which is not my intention (I think you all are great and appreciate all the time you have put into this!)
-Tony

 

[Draven]

Double-tapping is intended to overwhelm the target's ability to replace defenses.

Example: Double-tap with Binds to make sure you get past that Spell Shield before the target can get it back up. Double-tap with 9 Normal! Terminate! to get past magic armors before the target can put it back up. That's all well and good.

Double-tapping, with the first hit to be a Shatter, in order for the Shield to now be a vulnerability, that's absolutely not the same. That's double-tapping with the intent of beating the target's -mental capacity to comprehend what's going on-.

Beating defenses is one thing, winning by OOG confusion is Cheese. The reason people can't defend themselves with illegally held objects is to prevent defenders from abusing the rule; it doesn't exist to enable -attackers- to abuse it.

 

[Draven]

(Also, in case anyone is worried, yes, Tony is a great big jerk and I don't love him at all or his adorable face).

(That first comment is probably not serious. BUT MAYBE IT IS WHO KNOWS).

 

[A.mungo]

I understand the intent of what you are saying, and what I'm saying is that it will not be universally interpreted that way unless explicitly stated. We can see that just in this forum where two Marshalls and two owners would make different calls on the same situation (yours and Mythic's based upon unwritten sportsmanship ideals, mine and Beshers based upon our current rules as stated in the ARB).

The call of it's cheesy and I don't like it turns into more local LCO clarifications, of which the intent of 2.0 is to try and remove those as much as possible so we are all playing under one single internationally (thanks Mythic!) understood rule set.

I don't believe we will ever get to the point of having perfect clarity across the entire board, but if we can explicitly state a rule that has shown to be interpreted in different manners in the size of a single tweet, I believe it is worthwhile.

-Tony

 

[Tantarus]

So I was more focused on the meditate part for this question but, full disclosure:

So I did this against Bryan the head of arc. And the 4th hit was against the shield and it was an eviscerate I went "Disarm, Disarm, Disarm, Eviscerate" right into his shield as fast as you can say it. And he was forced to parry the Eviscerate after accepting a disarm. I had asked him before the playtest and he admitted this is the case. So to settle your arguing if that is legal or not. There you go.

I did it to make a bit of a point. The new disarm/shatter functionality is bad in my opinion, it creates problems like this. It makes corner cases for what is a legal target with a weapon attack which gets awkward when mixed with other weapon attacks. It also makes for a different functionality of weapon shield as discussed in my last post here.

Also in my opinion it makes shields terrible, border lined unusable. Shields use to be weak against packet attacks and strong against melee, but now a 15 build prereq skill for rogue or fighter punishes you for blocking as you are inclined to do with a shield. Now you are weak to the most common of special strikes and forced to either defend your shield with parries or become very vulnerable. The problem is disarms are so easy to get, at level 10 you can have 6, level 20 you get 12. My pc in the mid 30s can have over 20 disarms a day. Making shields a joke to deal with.

The problem with all the talk of letting them drop the shield and pausing your attack is it creates problems of cheese in the other way. Some people strap shields on and it can take a few seconds. This can cold your offense, stop a press. give a caster behind them extra time to slip in another spell, etc. There is a reason hitting illegal targets still counts as a hit. So people cant wear extra gear and have it count as a block, it eliminates a lot more problems in combat to just declare they are all hits to cut out any cheese that people can come up with.

Also for the people that say the old disarm was unrealistic, which it was, get past their weapons to hit their body to make them drop their hand held stuff. The new disarm is just as unrealistic, you tap the front of a shield, a Device who's whole purpose is to block weapons, and it just goes flying off their arm... Lets be real, both are equally unrealistic, but the 2.0 disarm gimps shields to nearly unusability.

 

[mythic]

When I say I wait, I'm not talking a minute. It's just a second or two until the person drops the shield. Rarely does it take someone more than a few seconds to call a defense or drop the shield.

The issue with Disarm/Shatter is in the "real world" the item is not really gone. The physrep is still there. So we take it upon ourselves to make sure the player drops it in a timely manner. Now, if they have strapped it in so much that they cannot remove it quickly, I will hit them on their opposite side while they unbuckle. I won't intentionally hit their shield again.

And I am all for making it explicit in the rules as well. If Tony knows an owner, he should ask that lovely person to put a quick word into ARC.

 

[Draven]

When I say I wait, I'm not talking a minute. It's just a second or two until the person drops the shield. Rarely does it take someone more than a few seconds to call a defense or drop the shield.

I feel it's reasonable to give someone the same amount of time to drop a shield that we give them to call a defense.