Waylay and Armor questions
- Thread starter xylex
- Start date
Maxondaerth
Virtuoso
Plus the hat only helps if it is in fact rated as part of your armour that you're wearing. If it's just a costume hat it provides no protection.
A
Anonymous
Guest
jpariury;18718 said:
Web?
I was under the impresion that Web was like two Pins and a Bind.
Was that changed in the last edition?
Shikar al'Basteua
Elite
Is there a reference for this? Last I checked the neck had been removed from any armor definitions, and waylay protection fell specifically to the "head" region.
obcidian_bandit
Pioneer
Damien;18910 said:
Nope, that's never been the case. That's often used as a 'pseudo-description' to newer players though. A web immobilizes you from the neck down, pulling your arms to your sides. Web and Confine are practically identical, except for the level and difficulty for monsters to rip from (and in previous editions, how much damage the monster would take from ripping).
Two locations for the cranial region: head and face. Where face is described as the front of the neck to the forehead and head is described as the back of the neck to the forehead.
A hat or helm of appropriate armor value that extends from the forehead to the hairline at the back of the neck would cover more than half of the required area, which should apply for full coverage at the appropriate armor value of the item in question.
At least, that would be what the text in the armor section would seem to indicate between locations and coverage/type. *shrug* Seems to me that neck is just being used in the descriptions to give people locational reference and not as a location in and of itself since the cranial regions in both cases comprise the majority of the face and head locations.
A hat or helm of appropriate armor value that extends from the forehead to the hairline at the back of the neck would cover more than half of the required area, which should apply for full coverage at the appropriate armor value of the item in question.
At least, that would be what the text in the armor section would seem to indicate between locations and coverage/type. *shrug* Seems to me that neck is just being used in the descriptions to give people locational reference and not as a location in and of itself since the cranial regions in both cases comprise the majority of the face and head locations.
obcidian_bandit
Pioneer
P56, top of the page, third column: "Armor that protects the back of the neck" gives waylay protection. The examples given are Coifs.
Specifically, the two passages are:
P29 "Head armor provides protection from the Waylay effects even if armor is breached..."
P56 "Waylays and Armor Protection: Armor that protects and covers the back of the neck provides limited protection from a Waylay. A leather coif will protect against a "1 Waylay" and a metal ..."
(NERO Alliance Rulebook v3.0 by Mike Ventrella)
The "back of the neck" wording takes precedence here as it's the more specific of the two phrases. Only the "back of the neck" section says what level of waylay protection is provided from what armor. In short, the actual (necessary) armor vs waylay rules are in the Waylay section, whereas the P29 wording is more general, just describing that head armor provides some protection in some way (if you went by just P29 all head armor would provide protection from all Waylay effects!).
I'd chalk this one up to unfortunate placement of the armor vs waylay protection under the Waylay skill instead of the Armor section as it belongs.
-Bryan Gregory
NERO Seattle Head of Rules
P29 "Head armor provides protection from the Waylay effects even if armor is breached..."
P56 "Waylays and Armor Protection: Armor that protects and covers the back of the neck provides limited protection from a Waylay. A leather coif will protect against a "1 Waylay" and a metal ..."
(NERO Alliance Rulebook v3.0 by Mike Ventrella)
The "back of the neck" wording takes precedence here as it's the more specific of the two phrases. Only the "back of the neck" section says what level of waylay protection is provided from what armor. In short, the actual (necessary) armor vs waylay rules are in the Waylay section, whereas the P29 wording is more general, just describing that head armor provides some protection in some way (if you went by just P29 all head armor would provide protection from all Waylay effects!).
I'd chalk this one up to unfortunate placement of the armor vs waylay protection under the Waylay skill instead of the Armor section as it belongs.
-Bryan Gregory
NERO Seattle Head of Rules
Seattle_Dave
Virtuoso
To further clarify, Are we saying that you must cover the back of the neck to gain waylay protection (if you do not have it through some other, arcane method?
Dave;18937 said:
Yes, as per the specifications on the upper right section of page 56. Note that this means that Waylay effects can be stopped, but you will still take the damage as per page 26. In a perfect world, these rules would all be in the same place for easy reference.
A marshal evaluating armor should note what waylay protection you receive from your armor.
-Bryan
So, by your ruling then, Bryan, someone who wears neck only armor (does not cover the back of the head) would then get full waylay protection for the armor value, but not full armor value for the head location since the neck is less than half of the Head location. Which, btw, would give them an advantage over someone wearing a helm for full armor but would get less waylay protection.
eg: a 2 pt leather helm would give 2 pts of armor and 2 waylay protection whereas a plate neck guard would provide 2 (3/2 round up) armor protection and a 3 waylay protection.
This seems very counterintuitive of the rules system in general to me...
eg: a 2 pt leather helm would give 2 pts of armor and 2 waylay protection whereas a plate neck guard would provide 2 (3/2 round up) armor protection and a 3 waylay protection.
This seems very counterintuitive of the rules system in general to me...
Sarah;18939 said:
That is correct. Someone could wear a piece of armor that gives no armor value at all but gives waylay protection. I've seen this purposely done in-game (once, years ago).
Personally I see it as case # 8,923 in terms of the NERO Alliance rules system being counterintuitive
I'd be happy to refer this to ARC if you like, however, the reading of it seems pretty cut and dry to me. One section of the rulebook says the general statement of 'head protection can provide waylay protection', while another section of the rulebook gives the details of specifically *how* head protection can provide waylay protection (namely that it must cover the back of the neck and be of a certain quality of armor). The placing is unfortunate to say the least, but the rules are pretty well spelled out in the Waylay section.
It's similar to, say, page 18 saying "The defensive spell Shield provides additional Armor Points", but the actual mechanics of how Shield works is on page 87. The first gives a general statement that something does something, while the second gives the specifics of how that something works. The difference between this case and Waylay armor protection is that the placement in the rulebook is exactly where you'd expect it.
-Bryan
Alavatar;18940 said:
I recall a previous version of the rulebook stating that Waylay was intended to be a strike at the base of the skull, but that for safety reasons this was not allowed. Head shots in general aren't allowed after all, but we still allow armor there. Anyways, in that version of the rulebook, it was made obvious that the intent of a Waylay was to strike someone on the back of the neck - so to protect against Waylays there, you had to wear armor there.
History lesson brought to you by the letters A, N, and the number 6.
-Bryan
Shikar al'Basteua
Elite
Without an upturned collar or ruff neck armor does not protect the base of the skull, which generally lies a good inch or so above the point where most neck protection (without the aforementioned accoutrements) stops.
Head armor, such as a cap or coif, usually does protect this area.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the ruling, but the premise on which it is historically built is absurd.
Head armor, such as a cap or coif, usually does protect this area.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the ruling, but the premise on which it is historically built is absurd.