Weapon Shatter Inquiry

Draven

Draven

Pioneer
Since Shatter now hits whatever it hits:

1) I have my magic wand tied to my wrist, and Durnic uses a weapon Shatter. He aimed for my armor, but I "blocked" it with my wrist-tied wand. Since my wand is indestructible, I call "No effect."

2) I have two shields, one's on my back. -Both- are magical. Durnic gets behind me, intending to get my armor, and Shatters! But he hits the back shield. Since it's indestructible, I call "No effect."

3) I have a magic backpack! It's pretty awesome! And when I get Shatter to the back, I call no effect!

4) I have a magic cloak! When people start swinging shatters, I try to protect my sword with it, so I can call "No effect!"

Thoughts?
 
Since hits to costuming (which the cloak would be) would hit the player or whatever it would have hit normally, I would say your sword bites the dust. I feel that person is trying to utilize the rules in a way it wasn't intended.

Same with the backpack. Unless their goal was the back pack? But if they were attempting to hit your shoulder where your armor was and tapped the strap, I would say you take it to the armor. But again, that's just me.

The shield is really tough. Especially since you are not wielding it, therefore you should not confer any bonus from it. I would say it goes through and hits your armor...

Blocking with a wand is actually not allowed since it is not a shield or weapon made for striking. I would say you are breaking the rules there too. Take it to the armor.

Sorry for going in reverse... I feel the spirit of the rules is more important than trying to rules lawyer or rules weasel your way into avoiding an effect.
 
norman b said:
Since hits to costuming (which the cloak would be) would hit the player or whatever it would have hit normally, I would say your sword bites the dust. I feel that person is trying to utilize the rules in a way it wasn't intended.

Same with the backpack. Unless their goal was the back pack? But if they were attempting to hit your shoulder where your armor was and tapped the strap, I would say you take it to the armor. But again, that's just me.

The shield is really tough. Especially since you are not wielding it, therefore you should not confer any bonus from it. I would say it goes through and hits your armor...

Blocking with a wand is actually not allowed since it is not a shield or weapon made for striking. I would say you are breaking the rules there too. Take it to the armor.

Sorry for going in reverse... I feel the spirit of the rules is more important than trying to rules lawyer or rules weasel your way into avoiding an effect.
Click to expand...

I believe that this is how it should work, but I believe an extra line should be included. "Any strikes to the legal body will target the armor." Otherwise, the way it reads, Shatter targets whatever it comes in contact with.
 
Aside from the fact that I personally love the idea of Durnic going to town on Zeth with Shatters, I think the "spirit of the rules" is pretty clear here and I agree with @norman b's assessments.

I do appreciate bringing it up so that we can properly clarify the wording, however.
 
Alavatar said:
What if Durnic is trying to Shatter that backpack or back-strapped shield not knowing it is Indestructible?
Click to expand...

Probably a quick "backpack/shield or armor?" question from Zeth? Or clarification from Durnic on which he was aiming for?
 
Pretty much. Or let the player call "shatter, backpack" if they are specifically targeting it. If they miss and hit the person's shoulder, it takes out the armour instead. This is where we, as players, have the "don't be a ****" rule. We are here to have some fun. Something like this case can be done with a quick word between players and then off they go.

We will never be able to write the rules for all aspects and tangents. We have to at some point let the players work things out amongst themselves.
 
Tangent....

What about when two people swing their weapons at each other and call Shatter? I would assume both would shatter if neither of them were magic.
 
norman b said:
Tangent....

What about when two people swing their weapons at each other and call Shatter? I would assume both would shatter if neither of them were magic.
Click to expand...
I know that if this happened to me I would take the Shatter on my weapon and then giggle heartily. I would hope that my opponent would do the same.
 
Does a riposted shatter (or disarm) affect the weapon the attack was initially made with? This seems like the only logical conclusion, but I just want to make sure.
 
mythic said:
Pretty much. Or let the player call "shatter, backpack" if they are specifically targeting it. If they miss and hit the person's shoulder, it takes out the armour instead. This is where we, as players, have the "don't be a ****" rule. We are here to have some fun. Something like this case can be done with a quick word between players and then off they go.

We will never be able to write the rules for all aspects and tangents. We have to at some point let the players work things out amongst themselves.
Click to expand...

We will never be able to write rules for all the tangents is never an excuse for writing knowingly unclear rules in the first place and expecting players and marshals to hash them out in the heat of combat.
 
It definitely needs clarifying, because this'll happen.

Player 1 will Shatter Player 2's backpack midcombat, intending to hit the armor.

Player 2 will call No Effect because the backpack is magic.

Player 1 will assume the Armor is magic, and ask no questions.

Neither thinks they're wrong, but one certainly is, and because we're taking targets out of the verbals, neither have an opportunity to be corrected.
 
Meh. Honestly? Both need to slow down and just ask for clarification. If neither does, then they are both wrong. If you are swinging so quick that you can't ask that question you just need to slow down.
 
Draven said:
It definitely needs clarifying, because this'll happen.

Player 1 will Shatter Player 2's backpack midcombat, intending to hit the armor.

Player 2 will call No Effect because the backpack is magic.

Player 1 will assume the Armor is magic, and ask no questions.

Neither thinks they're wrong, but one certainly is, and because we're taking targets out of the verbals, neither have an opportunity to be corrected.
Click to expand...

I still think examples like this are so unlikely that they aren't really worth considering. No fighter or rogue is going to waste a Shatter on armor when weapons and, most particularly, shields, are much, MUCH better targets. And if a rogue is attacking from behind, that strike would be significantly more effective as a Terminate or an Assassinate. Only a fighter might be tempted to swing a Shatter and that still is a poor use of a skill when just about every other fighter skill (except Disarm) would be better.

Also, while I acknowledge that every game is different, I can't think of even one character that I have ever met that wears a backpack (in over 20 years of play). I've never heard of a backpack being made indestructible. I am certain that one exists somewhere in the game (mostly due to Murphy's Law), but you can't convince me that indestructible backpack wearing characters are suddenly going to become a plague on any game.

-MS
 
mythic said:
Meh. Honestly? Both need to slow down and just ask for clarification. If neither does, then they are both wrong. If you are swinging so quick that you can't ask that question you just need to slow down.
Click to expand...

This is why I was so happy to see the flurry rule in playtesting, and really regret to see it go. Combat speed is a problem that breaks 90% of the rest of our mechanics once it gets out of hand.
 
Muir said:
This is why I was so happy to see the flurry rule in playtesting, and really regret to see it go. Combat speed is a problem that breaks 90% of the rest of our mechanics once it gets out of hand.
Click to expand...
We have heard you guys. The removal of the Flurry rule from the 0.8 packet was an oversight, not some kind of nefarious plot.

*wrings hands maniacally*
 
mythic said:
Meh. Honestly? Both need to slow down and just ask for clarification. If neither does, then they are both wrong. If you are swinging so quick that you can't ask that question you just need to slow down.
Click to expand...

There is a one line fix for these corner cases. "If this shatter hits something other than a weapon or shield it is assumed to hit the armor unless the attacker specified otherwise." Avoids corner cases while allowing them, and as you can add to calls/incants means you can shatter Mr Backpackigan's treasured backpack with the skill. While Turtleman's indestructible shell backpack doesn't protect his whole back from Shatter attacks.

:/
 
Durnic said:
We have heard you guys. The removal of the Flurry rule from the 0.8 packet was an oversight, not some kind of nefarious plot.

*wrings hands maniacally*
Click to expand...

Oh, cool, thanks for the heads up. It sounded more like it was pulled because the problem it intended to 'fix' was removed, which gave me the impression that it was likely gone for good. Glad to hear that's not the case, as I think it will make a vast improvement in Alliance combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top