Armor Changes - Inox

Forum for the discussion of proposals people would like to make.
HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-01-29

Yes Andric nailed it. It seemed that red was only doing light damage first on AC 1 & 2 and nothing else. The new wording is MUCH better.

I still don't like the idea of F-ing with the balance... but the idea of super reds was just too much. So now my greatsword is going to cause a Mortal wound to a limb with the second shot to studded and the third shot to plate and I will be able to punch through brig on the second hit. And everyone is OK with this? Seems like an amazing leap for greatswords...

Speaking as a someone who takes great pride in mastering a very tough weapon to use in this game, I don't like the idea of dumming down my art. LOL. Truthfully you could keep this system and make it fit our current system by adding this to the black weapon rule:

Black does two points. The first wound from a Black weapon, to a limb, is always counted as a Light (i.e., one hit) to anyone wearing AC 1 - 4.


As far as insulting you Inox, I do apologize... given the way I read the rules and the fact that your country is filled with amazing spearmen (including yourself, & Andrick..aka..Brother Abe) it was very difficult for me to wrap my brain around the fact that you guys were proposing Reds being so beefed up.

As a greatswordsman, I would/could never have proposed a rule like this...and it would have looked very bad if I had. People would most definetly say that I was just trying to make blackswords more powerful in the name of simplifying the rule system, just because that is what I use.

I understand, now, that you didn't intend the rules to be read as I read them... and that you weren't suggesting such a giant power tilt for red weapons. That said, as far as I know, you guys never argued against what I was saying, otherwise... in-so leaving me to believe that is exactly what you were proposing... even when we spoke at roundtree you never told me I was reading your proposal incorrectly.

Kudos to Andrick for actually reading our words vs. inferred intent... ha!

So, obviously there was a miscommunication as to what I was upset about (on your part) and what you guys were actually proposing (on my part). Or maybe it was all my fault for not being clear enough in my arguments... I don't know... could be...

Anyway... I hope now, since you understand given what I thought your proposal intended to do for reds and the fact you guys are already doom enough in that category... My thought was that it was easy to turn a blind eye to the potential imbalance of the proposal.

I am still not hip on beefing up Black sword (when there doesn't seem to be a real reason to do so) but with the threat of dying in three shots to stabbies out of the picture, the world sure does look a lot nicer. Like I said... I suggest adding the black sword stipulation in... but I'm not gonna fight it as it stands...

Like I have been saying all along I am fine with making things simpler, I just didn't want to revamp game balance in the name of simplicity. Some systems settle distputes through rock paper scissors... reality dictates a level of complexity. Honestly, I don't give a ratz ass about other games thinking our system is a joke. All systems have inherent flaws.

Later,
Malkin

User avatar
Prince Andrick
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 226
Joined: 2012-01-10

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Prince Andrick » 2012-01-29

I am glad it all came down to a matter of confusion. It's also commendable you would suggest black not be made more powerful. I just don't agree with you. While the idea of Malkin wielding more powerful black weapons does not fill me with joy, they need a boost.

First, people have complained for years about how powerful shields are. While this doesn't directly make them less powerful, it certainly counters them a bit.

Second, black is the only weapon in the game that requires both hands, so it ahould be significantly more powerful then anything else.

Last, for those that want to talk about the real world, having a limb cut off is certainly worse then having it cruahed, cut or stabbed.

I am perfectly ok with this proposal even thought it makes my primary weapon (yellow) weaker and basically keeps my secondary weapon (red) the same. It just makes too much sense to allow personal preference to enter the equation.

And damn it Malkin, spell my name right! AndricK! K ON THE END!
Prince Andrick VanDahl KR, OSW, OR, OD, CM, CC
High Priest of Thor
Elidorian Minister of War
Field Marshal
President 2013

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-01-30

Hey, I spelled it right 2 out of 3 times. Batting .666 is pretty dang good in baseball... what do you want from me? No one's perfect...

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-01-30

Quick question...

How much of the current hit system will this proposal be taking place of, in the RB? Meaning...

What about other crazy situational stipulations like: if you suffer a light wound, to a limb, by a shot to a gap, the armor for that hit zone no longer protects you... Stuff like that...?

Because things like this have happened in the past. We get a rule that seems relatively comprehensive but doesn't account for certain situations which were accounted for previously. Everyone assumes it's still in the RB... then some new guys says "Where?".

So my question is someone going to go through and make sure the wording of this coincides with all other parts of the RB where hits and hit zones are mentioned? Or has someone done this yet?

By asking this I guess I am simply saying: Hey, lets make sure we do this, prior to applying the rule and deleting all the old stuff. Um... preferably prior to it being presented to Senate.

Later,
M

User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Lord Dubh » 2012-01-30

Malkin,

At least for 2012. When something new goes into a RB I have an editorial manager that will go through and make sure nothing contradicts it. That is the best that I can do.

In the instances of covering all circumstances...well when has a rule ever done that??
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

User avatar
Sir Gwydion
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 115
Joined: 2012-01-16

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Sir Gwydion » 2012-01-31

There were questions relating to the armor gap clause on Sunday that I was asked to rule on. This clause is important and makes a BIG difference if it's taken out. I imagine that Inox proposes to omit only the actual charts section.

Armor requirements from pages 63 through 66 will have to be examined, and page 67 will have to be revised for new colored armbands (probably just delete the orange armband). Then the whole armor section gets re-written from pages 75to 85. Good news is that it will be much shorter.
Sir Gwydion, Baron of Gladesedge
Sometime mistaken for Avlis, Ranger of the Woods of Elidor (also of Gladesedge)

User avatar
Sir Gwydion
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 115
Joined: 2012-01-16

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Sir Gwydion » 2012-01-31

I have been playing for 5 years. I don't know how to combine taking red and white and black damage on my armor.

My best guess has been to take black and red the same (like two white hits) and take white and yellow the same. This proposal codifies the way I take damage, aside from the freak rules about taking light wounds (mortal to torso) from the first hit to penetrate armor on red and black weapons.
Sir Gwydion, Baron of Gladesedge
Sometime mistaken for Avlis, Ranger of the Woods of Elidor (also of Gladesedge)

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2012-02-01

I assumed that the light wound through destroyed armor was becasue the armor is not really destroyed. Its just not able to protect you from blows anymore because its so beaten and battered. I agree with malkin, having black and red be the same would pretty much simplify it more, just red ignores AR4 and AR3.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

HRH Malkin
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 82
Joined: 2012-01-19

Simplified Further...?

Post by HRH Malkin » 2012-02-02

Here's another suggestion, while were on the subject of simplicity... if we're revamping this thing lets try to simplify it as far as it will go...

Why not make chained weapons the only yellow weapons... all non-chained one handers are white.

All the silly stuff about bars vs. sword quillions a club and a morning star.
.. blah blah... all that nonsense would be done with!

As far as clerics go...Let them use white no-stabby

Clerics get a little boost in the non-chained category... even so my guess is most clerics still aint gonna give up their flails...

Chained weapons are really the blanace issue here because they are head legal (which is why the should be in their own class)... there's nothing that great about a club except it has no flat...SOOoooo....

If we nix the falt rule (and lets be honest here...no one can really tell flats, unless they are actually watching a fight and not fighting the fight... and even then it's tough) and we say a hit is a hit... This shortens the rulebook even further!

Yeah so... people would come out with more cyclindrical weaponary when flats don't matter... but who the F cares? Some swords look a little better than others, but Its a big fat foam stick no matter how you slice it... Regardless, there still would be people who want the look of a sword and keep their flats... let them.

This would certainly simplfiy the hit system and make more sense to newbies imho.

So chain = yellow
Non-chained one handers = white

You would have a hard time denying this wouldn't make more sense and be easier to comprehend to new players.
Last edited by HRH Malkin on 2012-02-02, edited 1 time in total.

ylinett
Darkonian
Posts: 139
Joined: 2012-01-11
Contact:

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by ylinett » 2012-02-02

Please send this to Senate already. Any one of these is better than what we have by far. Let's get it in and voted upon.
Thane of the Northern Kingdoms
Warrior and Brehon of Albion
Lord of the Realm and Knight of Tuesday
OG OR OS OD CC CB CS

User avatar
fingers630
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 1613
Joined: 2012-01-11
Location: In his Anti Magic Pants

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by fingers630 » 2012-02-02

Ha Thrush and I were just talking about that on Monday. He was commenting on my sissy flail use and I said if I played a fighter, Id fight sword and board, but a bar and board is a HUGE disadvantage since you cant kill someone to a limb.

clerics get non stab white sword. remove mandatory quillions. done!

<3 malkin
Justicar Lucius Alexander Crum
Archmage of Elidor and Lord of the Realm
Queen of the Silly People

______________________________________________________________________
"I'll grapple with greasy fingers... Just sayin'..."-Thrush

User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Lord Dubh » 2012-02-28

Why has this not been sent to Senate. It is pretty much the only thing proposed so far that I support and I think it would simplify things a great deal....and certainly make the rulebook smaller.
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Lord Dubh » 2012-02-29

Would the proposer of this please post it in the Proposals Submitted section so we can see the final.
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

User avatar
Inox
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-09

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Inox » 2012-03-01

I seem to be unable to repost it with formatting. Basically, it's the edited first post in this thread.
Prince Inox Elsonáge Thensiur
Swordslinger of No Quarter!
Warriors' Guild, OE, CCx8, CM(Warrior Mage)
Beast of BABALON

User avatar
Kobalos
Moderator
Posts: 215
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Paledor
Contact:

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Kobalos » 2012-03-01

See? Something's jacked up with the Proposed Items sub-forum. That's why mine are posted in plaintext.
--Κοβαλος

Baron Kobalos
Fauzi ibn-al-Rashid al-Halabi, KR, OR, CB
Steward of House Dubh
Director, First Royal Darkon Trust
Head NC Armor Marshal 2014

DarkonAdministrator
Posts: 19
Joined: 2009-01-04

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by DarkonAdministrator » 2012-03-01

Ok. Please try now.

User avatar
Inox
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-09

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Inox » 2012-03-01

Done; it works now.
Prince Inox Elsonáge Thensiur
Swordslinger of No Quarter!
Warriors' Guild, OE, CCx8, CM(Warrior Mage)
Beast of BABALON

Ash_Sarum
Darkonian
Posts: 15
Joined: 2012-01-31

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Ash_Sarum » 2012-03-01

Sorry for hopping in this one late but I had a few thoughts after reading through it.

I'd recommend changing "Hits Taken to Body:" to "Damage Taken to Body:" for the title of the chart. Just to remove potential confusion such as getting struck by a black sword is "one hit" but it does two points of damage. Damage also seems more consistent with the other wording in the proposal.

It might be good to change "The AC equals the points of damage it stops." to something like "The AC equals the points of damage it stops before being destroyed." Again, really minor stuff but I think it helps with clarity for someone new.

I'm curious why leather scale got bumped up in the armor listings. In the current rules it's equivalent to leather armor so I wasn't sure why it got moved up an armor rating to the AC2 group. I wasn't sure if it was a typo or intended.

User avatar
Amazing_Iltztafein
Darkonian
Posts: 548
Joined: 2012-01-06

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Amazing_Iltztafein » 2012-03-01

Ash_Sarum wrote:I'm curious why leather scale got bumped up in the armor listings. In the current rules it's equivalent to leather armor so I wasn't sure why it got moved up an armor rating to the AC2 group. I wasn't sure if it was a typo or intended.

Probably because it has to be made of 5oz leather BUT it also has to overlap AND be attached to something, making it weigh quite a bit more than 5oz leather in the end.
The Amazing Iltztafein of House Dubh - CB
Let me show you a magic trick...
I'll make your money... DISAPPEAR!

User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Lord Dubh » 2012-03-01

Ash_Sarum wrote:Sorry for hopping in this one late but I had a few thoughts after reading through it.

I'd recommend changing "Hits Taken to Body:" to "Damage Taken to Body:" for the title of the chart. Just to remove potential confusion such as getting struck by a black sword is "one hit" but it does two points of damage. Damage also seems more consistent with the other wording in the proposal.

It might be good to change "The AC equals the points of damage it stops." to something like "The AC equals the points of damage it stops before being destroyed." Again, really minor stuff but I think it helps with clarity for someone new.



The "hit" vs "damage" may be a result of the headband armor which deals in HITS vs damage...
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2012-03-02

There was a rule to let any leather 10oz or higher go through in certain styles such as Brig, scale, etc. It should be in the rulebook since it was passed forever ago.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

Ash_Sarum
Darkonian
Posts: 15
Joined: 2012-01-31

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Ash_Sarum » 2012-03-02

Sir Tyriel Firebrand wrote:There was a rule to let any leather 10oz or higher go through in certain styles such as Brig, scale, etc. It should be in the rulebook since it was passed forever ago.


It is in the description of Hide armor in the rulebook:

Hide is armor in which a single layer of leather is at least 10 oz. in thickness. Multiple thinner layers that add up to 10 oz. or greater DO NOT count. Any single piece of armor (greave, torso, bracers, etc.) that contains ANY area under 10 oz. in thickness (other than fastening straps) does not count as Hide. Any armor type (scale, lamellar, brigandine, etc.) made wholly with 10-oz. leather (excluding straps and backing material) shall be considered AC3 Hide armor as long as the scales/plates overlap or butt (i.e., within 1/4") against adjoining scales/plates. A green armband must always be worn with this armor type, so as to readily distinguish it from AC 4.

I was just trying to figure out if the bump to leather scale's AC in the proposal (making it equivalent to studded/hide/etc.) was intentional or not.

Current description of leather scale in the rulebook:
Leather scale armor consists of small leather scraps securely attached to a heavy material or leather in alternating rows.

Sir Caetrel
President
Posts: 277
Joined: 2012-01-11

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Sir Caetrel » 2012-03-02

Ash is correct. The 2011 rulebook clearly lists leather scale along with leather. The innovation a few years back was to allow Hide specifically to count in the same rating as ring/ studded etc...But leather scale is just leather.

Typo I suppose.
Baron Caetrel Von Garren, KR, OSW, OR, OG, CC, CS
Lord Protector of The Northern Kingdoms
King of Sarum
High Priest of Torm The True, First Born of The Dragyn
Brother of The White Mantle
Knight of The Realm

User avatar
Inox
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-09

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Inox » 2012-03-02

Yeah, it was in reference to Hide Scale. Anything purely 5 oz. would remain in the Leather category.

We can clean that up in Senate if need be.
Prince Inox Elsonáge Thensiur
Swordslinger of No Quarter!
Warriors' Guild, OE, CCx8, CM(Warrior Mage)
Beast of BABALON

Sir Caetrel
President
Posts: 277
Joined: 2012-01-11

Re: Armor Changes - Inox

Post by Sir Caetrel » 2012-03-02

I though you were infallible up until now. How disappointing...
Baron Caetrel Von Garren, KR, OSW, OR, OG, CC, CS
Lord Protector of The Northern Kingdoms
King of Sarum
High Priest of Torm The True, First Born of The Dragyn
Brother of The White Mantle
Knight of The Realm

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests