Armor Changes - Inox

[Inox]

AC 0: Garb only
AC 1: 5 oz. Leather
AC 2: Augmented Leather (studs, rings, spaced plates, etc.), Hide, Leather Scale, & Thin Chainmail
AC 3: Chainmail, Scale, Butted
AC 4: Banded and Plate

The AC equals the points of damage it stops.

Code: Select all

               Hits Taken to Body:   
             1          2            3
Limb       Light      Mortal       Death
Torso      Mortal     Death        Death
Head       Death      Death        Death

• Yellow does one point, but cannot advance a limb beyond Light.
• White does one point.
• Black does two points.
• Red does two points and ignores AC 1 and 2 entirely. The first wound from a red weapon to a limb is always Light.

[Lord Dubh]

I will not be co-signing anything this year...so someone needs to co-sign and present.

[Lord Valfryn]

Cosign... again

[Lord Cailen Sendor]

As per the other discussion the following were the proposed changes to make the new point system be closer to when we use now while switching to a simple point system.

1.
Yellow does one point, but cannot advance a limb beyond Light.
White does one point.
Black does two points, but the first wound to a limb threw armor is always a Light.
Red does two points and ignores AC 1 & 2 entirely, but the first wound to a limb is always a Light.

2.
Inox said he would present the following if and only if the primary proposal above fails.

Armor protecting the head area always is counted as having one less AC.
(Meaning 5 oz leather has 0 ac all the way up to plate which would have 3 ac as this would be equal to the current hits armor located on the head can take).

I like this proposal and support it 100% with the above changes.

I cosign ... if cosign is needed

[Lord Valfryn]

Just to ensure that we are on the same page... you are implying that the first point of damage BEYOND the armor value will cause light wound?

Example 1: chain sleeve 3 armor pts, first black hit 2 pts of armor damage, secnd black hit = 1 pt of armor damage, one pont of limb damage: light wound.

Example 2: hide sleeve 2 armor pts, first black hit to the sleeve: 2 pts of armor damage. Second black hit: 2 pts of limb damage. 2 pts to a limb = mortal

Are you saying 2 pts beyond armor should still be a light wound? That semi damage stuff is the reason I want the new point system.

[Inox]

Yeah, I agree with Valfryn. We do not need that extra hit in there, especially since it's illogical and confusing to most players.

We should err on the side of simplicity with hits. That leads to better fighting.

[DarkonAdministrator]

Inox, you should not be able to edit the OP.

[Lord Dubh]

Think of it as if the naked body has 1 point.

1 point - light
2 points - mortal
3+ points - dead

This allows for the simple math.

[Prince Andrick]

Think of it as if the naked body has 1 point.

1 point - light
2 points - mortal
3+ points - dead

This allows for the simple math.

Well, except for the body and head. There is no light wound to the body or head, so the first point of damahe to either of those is mortal, second death.

[HRH Malkin]

We do not need that extra hit in there, especially since it's illogical and confusing to most players.

I love how you speak for "most players" and know what confuses them, Inox. Seriously, you cannot make such an assertion.

The extra hit stipulation is no less logical than all the extra stipulations you have for red weapons... if you're trying to keep it simple, why do red weapons get any extra stipulations?

i.e.,

ignores AC 1 & 2 entirely, but the first wound to a limb is always a Light.

Why? because for some reason you don't want them to lose that one hit against studded armor, yet you want them to gain the extra damage to limbs against plate and kill anywhere when wearing no armor.

If you really wanted it simplified, you'd just say the first damaging hit will always do 1 hit, no matter what the weapon type... then you don't need to add any stipulations for reds, they do two hits. It's actually simpler imho and it doesn't allow three leg shots to a plate greeve to be killing blow. In this rule Black weapons would be weakened, because they can't kill to no armor since they'd only do one hit... but I'd rather see that than SUPER POWERFUL RED WEAPONS.

In reality you are adding the one hit rule... but only applying it to red weapons against studded and leather... how is that simplified?

AND you are also making a single spearshot to any unarmored limb mortal...wtf?!

How does

ignore the armor but counts as one hit

simplfy things?

Does that seem simpler to everyone?

Sounds like you want your reds and simple too.

I call shananigans! Seriously change that crap and simplify it... for real, without trying to fit red in it's own complex system... making it more powerful all the way around. If not, trust I will be there in Senate to fight it... it sucks that you guys are using the more reasonable ruling as a fall back.

From a country who's biggest one the field asset is their long spears, it really sucks to see you guys pushing red weapons to be so fricken doom in the game, especially with all your obvious influences.

[HRH Malkin]

To put things in simpler terms:

White Weapons: are effectively unchanged in damage results from the new and old system
Yellow Weapons: lose one hit to AC 3, but are otherwise unchanged

Black Weapons: gain the ability to mortal to limb with the 3rd shot to plate and gain the extra hit lost by yellow weapons to AC 3

Red weapons without the stipulations would
Gain the ability to mortally wound (or Kill) any unarmored person or gaps in armor.
lose one hit to studded
and gain the ability to kill to a limb with the third hit to plate.

With the added stipulation for red weapons:
They Gain the ability to mortally wound (or kill) any unarmored person or gaps in armor
don't lose any capacity as they had before
and gain the ability to kill to a limb with the third hit to plate.

So, for the sake of simplicty, Inox suggests, we do not add one stipulation, yet adds them just so reds maintain that one hit to studded.

So I ask, why must a red weapon not lose even one hit to a single armor type, when no extra stipulations for yellow were added to compensate for their one hit loss at AC 3?

If you really wanted to make it simple:
You change the armor types as previously stated: (AC0 is garb AC4 is plate)
You make yellow & white weapons do exactly the same damage (i.e., they each do 1 hit and let yellows actually kill to limbs no added stipulations necessary)
Make Red & Black do two hits with the only stipulation that ANY hit that does actual damage will only count as one hit (meaning for limbs: one hit = light wound, two hits = mortal wound and 3 hits = death etc...)
And for the loss of cleaving power to AC0 and headband armors for black weapons (which is huge), you make all black weapons shield break.

In this scenario:
White weapons stay the same across the board
Yellow weapons lose one hit to AC 3 but gain mortal capacity to limbs
Black weapons loses mortal capacity with one shot but gain shield break with three hits
Reds lose one hit to studded

That IMO is much more simplified than anything I have seen proposed. I mean, if we're really doing this in the name of simplification.

[Lord Valfryn]

We still need weapon variation for the sake of class balance, and equipment / armor balance. Also so we feel like theweapons are inherently different somehow.

At this point, wouldn't it be eqsier to say all weapons do 1 point of damage, but red and black do 2 points of a armor damage?

The fact that red pierces leather and studded is a fine example of weapon balance and armor balance.

[Inox]

The problem then is that you have Black not cleaving an unarmored limb & doing mortal.

It also makes Yellow (and by extension, Clerics) a lot stronger in general, even if it's 1 hit weaker vs. head armor.

All that just to get that next Black hit to an armor limb after it's blown out being a Light and not a Mortal? Come on.

When your armor is gone to your torso, currently, the next hit drops you. When your armor is gone to a limb, why should you not have a Light after one hit goes through, and a Mortal after two? It makes no sense whatsoever when my studded is gone to a leg, and I take a Light regardless if a Black or White hits me next.

Are people so dependent on that one extra hit in that particular case, which is a wound regardless, that they need to tart up what could be a great benefit to the game in terms of simplification and clarity? Do we need to win so much that we'll accept the cost of confusion?

[Prince Andrick]

Malkin, I have to tell you I am completely offended that you would imply Elidor is supporting this change only because it will make our long spears more effective. You are completely out of line, and more so you are completely wrong. The first damaging red hit to any limb, regardless of armor, is a light wound. Just like it is now. Read the current damage charts, and you will see that to be true. I assume that is what Inox is proposing, to keep it just like it is now. That wording should be made much clearer.

"Red ignores AC 1 and 2 entirely. The first wound from a red weapon to a limb is always light" fixed.

Making that clear means the following: Red WILL NOT CHANGE at all, basically.

Current rules: leather etc red does mortal to torso, light limb 1st hit. Death/mortal second. It does the exact same to studded etc under the current rules. New rules, same except 2nd is death to a limb instead of mortal. Who cares.

Chain and scale butted, 2nd torso mortal current, same as new rule. Limb, 2nd light 3rd hit mortal current. New, same except 3rd is death instead of mortal. Again, so what.

Plate/banded 3rd torso mortal current, new is death. Limb current is 3rd light, 4th mortal. New, same except 4th would now be death instead of mortal.

So, the ONLY change to red damage is death instead of mortal after inflicting a light to a limb. And somehow that makes red "super powerful"? I can't imagine anyone believes that. I don't even understand the whole "you want your one shot kill to studded" BS. You obviously have not read the rules on studded, it is already bypassed by red in our current rules.

The only weapons this makes truly more powerful against armor is black, and quite frankly it should be in my opinion. A huge sword or axe cleaving through a person should certainly do more damage then a sword or spear or dagger. You give up shields to use a black, they should be the most powerful weapon in the game. Elidor certainly is not known for our legions of greatswordsman.

One of two things happened here Malkin. Either you truly believe death instead of mortal is that big a deal, which I have a really hard time believing; or you did not have your facts straight. Perhaps I don't have mine straight and Inox does mean for red to cause a mortal to plate and unarmored on the first damaging hit. If that is the case, I will tell you right now I would not support that. It's too much for red. Currently, red always does a light to a limb when it first does a wound, and it should stay that way.

Regardless, you owe Elidor an apology. The implication that we as a nation would attempt to pass something solely to increase our own power in the game is incredibly offensive. We haven't even discussed it as a country yet. I certainly have more respect for you then that Malkin, I certainly thought you had more respect for us.

[Prince Andrick]

The more I read this the more I think it is a case of confusion. Inox is constantly referring to that last hit being black, Malkin to it being red. I am fairly sure Inox intends the red always does a light on first hit to a limb to apply in all cases, and Malkin reads it as that only applies against AC 1 and 2.

It should apply in all cases. What I posted above makes that much clearer. The fact is, it makes perfect sense that a hole in your leg is not as bad as cutting it off. Black should do more damage to limbs then red, and the modified proposal makes that happen.

[Lord Valfryn]

I don't mind black swords getting stronger, as they will make shields a good trade off by proxy. (limb kills with black swords will cause mortal one hit sooner).

I dont see this effecting the game in any huge way, and will only clean up our combat system by LOADS.

[Ericson]

Sounds to me like the naysayers should all participant in a play-test of these new rules at an event.

[Inox]

The more I read this the more I think it is a case of confusion. Inox is constantly referring to that last hit being black, Malkin to it being red. I am fairly sure Inox intends the red always does a light on first hit to a limb to apply in all cases, and Malkin reads it as that only applies against AC 1 and 2.

This is correct. My proposal above states at the end: "Red does two points and ignores AC 1 & 2 entirely, but the first wound to a limb is always a Light." Always. :D

That said, I like the wording you chose, Andrick. I will modify accordingly.

With Black, though...tt's laughable that, currently, once your armor is gone on a limb, the next hit by a White or a Black does the same thing.

[Prince Andrick]

Just as I thought, but I can see where it could be confusing the way it was written. I am still curious to hear from Malkin if he was reading it the way I thought he was, and if so if he is more comfortable with the proposal knowing red will always do a light to a limb on the first hit regardless of armor. Malkin?

[shroom2021]

The way I read the first post it looked very simple.

White does 1pt
Yellow does 1pt, cannot mortal or kill limbs
Black does 2pt
Red does 2pt, first limb shot past armor it light

I saw nothing about black doing light past armor in that first post.

As per examples above:
Two blacks(or 4pts of dmg) to AR3 (3pts of armor) = light damage (1pt of damage to the limb)
Two red(or 4pts of dmg) to AR3 (3pts of armor) = light damage (1 pt of damage to the limg)

Two black(or 4pts of dmg) to AR2 (2pts of armor) = mortal damage (2pts of damage to the limb)
Two reds(or 4pts of dmg) to AR2 (2pts of armor) = Death. (1st shot was light, 1pt, second death, total 3pts of dmg) <== Red ignores AR1 and 2.

Two blacks( or 4pts of dmg) to AR4 = Nothing (Armor destroyed)
Two reds(or 4pts of dmg) to AR4 = Nothing (Armor destroyed)
Two black and 1 Red(or 4pts of dmg followed by red) = Light wound. (Armor destroyed by black, light wound by red)
Three blacks to AR4(or 6pts of dmg) = mortal (4pts to armor, 2pts to limb)

I am not seeing how this is becoming complicated.

[Inox]

You read it correctly. Black does light past armor blowout only in the current system, generating illogical & confusing results.

[Gore Bludklaw]

so Red stays the same with the extra killing power of AR1 and AR2 and black mortals an AR4 limb instead of lights it? So, I need to get a stab tip on my sword and I can kill just about everything in 3 hits or less. is that right?

[Prince Andrick]

so Red stays the same with the extra killing power of AR1 and AR2 and black mortals an AR4 limb instead of lights it? So, I need to get a stab tip on my sword and I can kill just about everything in 3 hits or less. is that right?

Why is this so hard to understand? Red stays exactly the same as it is now, EXCEPT that AFTER the first hit to a limb the second wound delivered is death instead of mortal. The ONLY other difference is it will do death instead of mortal on the third hit to a plate torso, and do death instead of mortal on the first hit to leather and studded. That's it. No other changes to red.

I really wish people would read the current rules before making completely uninformed post. Red ALREADY deals a mortal to the torso on the first hit to leather and studded. In the new rules, it would deal death.

So, in99% of cases, there is no change to the power of red weapons. I play the highest ranking cleric in the game, and I can't even remember the last time cast cure mortal. Resurrection sure, but cure mortal almost never because mortal almost never happens.

The idea that death instead of mortal in the noted cases somehow makes red super powerful is laughable. Get real already and watch any battle and count the number of people who get out of a fight with a mortal wound. I'll bet ya 1000 gold you can count them on 1 hand, and probably on 1 finger.

And to answer your question more directly Gore, with a red stabby you can already kill or mortal leather and studded wearers in 1 hit, chain butted and scale in 2 and plate in 3. Yeah, your black will get stronger but red wont. If you really think having a red tip on your sword will make that much of a difference, I guess we should all be glad you didn't read the rules better before now, cuz it already does what you seem to think will be a change.

[Gore Bludklaw]

Andrick, I know that the point of the proposal is to simplify the rules and I am 100% for that. Anything that would streamline the rules and makes them easier to understand should be proposed. I guess it just makes me re-think wearing hide and using a blacksword together.

[Inox]

That's what this is ultimately all about: making a more playable game.

A simple system with no self-contradictions can only help us grow and have a better time doing it.

Some points with this proposal:

• It's easy for new people to learn the whole armor system on their first day.
  
  
• It removes a crossgamer disincentive to playing Darkon; our hit system is a joke (and we want to promote crossgaming).
  
  
• It's a much better system if we're going to start doing official chapters; confusion with our convoluted present system might make people go with a different rulebase (Dag, Belegarth, etc.) for their local chapter. Also, if we ever want to get large, our core combat rules need to be crystal clear and simple, and just work, or we run the risk of having a bunch of chapters that all have different local hit rules. Then, when we have a large gathering of the chapters, even if we mandate cutdown hit rules, you have a horde of people not used to playing them.
  
  
• I can't tell you how many times people ask me at events how many hits X takes when hit with some Y's and a Z. Every...single...event. Right now, some people are accidentally taking too many, or too few, because they are confused, and a wide range of people aren't sure how many times they need to hit someone. Yes, on the one hand, "swing 'til they drop", but on the other, knowing with certainty what armor takes under all circumstances fixes things on both sides. Plus, It's then becomes easier to detect rhinohiding & the deliberate blowing off of hits.