Page 2 of 2

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-15
by Halcon
Some of my own relevent comments from the FB group in case anyone missed them.

The grey area in question is someone putting 2 swords (though they could also be trying to hide behind a pole weapon too), with the flats forward, between themselves & the archer. People wishing to cheese the grey area say that because they are not "moving" their weapons to block any hits on them are "unintentional" there for negated. Anyone with any sense of fairplay say intentionally putting your weapons between yourself & an archer is "intentional blocking" there for you have to take the arm hit.

I guess the question is if you think think the rules intention is that you may not move your weapons to block after the archer fires or before.

There's a difference between holding your swords in a natural fighting stance & trying to hide behind them. It's a judgement call, & on the honor system, like many things in our game. But being in a natural fighting stance when no one else is near you & you are moving from out of your weapons range towards an archer, if you are placing your weapons between yourself & the archer, it could be argued you are intentional blocking.

Knowingly placing your weapons in a guard position & hoping for an "unintentional" hit seems pretty "intentional" to me.

All I am saying your best bet is keeping your weapons neutral & preparing to dodge, whether your intention is to advance or withdraw.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-16
by shroom2021
I think an all encompassing "Don't be an a**hole rule" should officially be on the books. I think it would give elders and players a great deal of leverage with which to get rid of "grey area" issues.

We could make a new series of rule changes to iron out every grey area that arises, and more rules for the grey areas that crop up our of those changes and so on and so forth well into the next decade, or we could give some additional trust to the guys who spend a great deal of time running our game instead of playing it (eb, elders, and pretty much anyone else who runs our events in an official capacity).

An A-hole rule is the easiest thing in the world to enforce and not at all hard to figure out when it applies.
If you feel as though you need to go home and post on the Darkon forums or facebook about something that you just witnessed, go tell an elder, if you are already an elder.... be an elder!

Even if the person "gets away" with whatever they are doing, you are still removing them from the field just long enough for them to think about what they are doing and for people to have a few rounds without their shenanigans.

The A-Hole rule, the last "grey area" rule we should ever have to make.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-16
by Ericson
You know, I get hit with arrows all the time. 75% of the time I never realize it and that oh-so-kind Havoc tells me afterwards, which allows me to take a nice little breather.

I agree the whole idea of facing off against an archer with 2 flat swords facing the archer being super cheesy. But if I am standing in a typical fighting stance when facing off against an archer, what's the issue? Does this mean that if a non-shield player is facing down an archer that they have to hang their hands on their side and let the archer hit them?

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-16
by Inox
More and more, I am coming around to the idea that arrows should be considered to pass through weapons.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-16
by Halcon
Why would you be "on guard" vs. an archer if you are not within melee combat range? If you are not in position to immediately attack said archer & you place your weapons between you & that archer you are indeed "intentionally blocking" so by the rules if your weapon is hit by an arrow you take a wound to that limb.

If you have no shield & you are facing an archer solo you have to rely on your armor, class abilities, spells &/or natural agility to protect you, not some supposed grey area cheesing of the rules.

There is No grey area though, if you put your weapons between yourself & an archer with the intention of them, possibly, blocking an arrow hit you take wound if one those weapons is hit by an arrow.

No archer worth his bow is going to force you to take an even slight questionable accidental block. If they do let me or another Noble know & we will have a talk with them about the honor system.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-17
by shroom2021
More and more, I am coming around to the idea that arrows should be considered to pass through weapons.


If I see a proposal I'll cosign. If I don't see a proposal, I'll probably draft one. Outside of a really lucky day, I can't imagine a sword deflecting an arrow enough to save you, but thats just me.

Why would you be "on guard" vs. an archer if you are not within melee combat range?


Why would you not be "on guard"? You're on a battlefield.....

There is No grey area though


If there was no grey area, we wouldn't have this thread.



Personally I have never had a problem with this at any time. I get hit, I die or call armor. Sometimes it dings my weapon, but I am usually not aware I am being shot at.

Make arrows pass through, enforce the "no a*holes rule", and have a great fight.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-17
by Halcon
The debate comes from what constitutes an "intentional block". At least one person a year decides that if they hold their weapon up but then "don't move them to block" while rushing an archer they now have an invulnerable shield of "unintentional blocking"

Let me attempt to simplify & explain again.

If you are focused on an archer, you are looking at them & expecting to be their target, and you move your weapon(s) in between them & you, and the thought even crosses your mind that the fired arrow may strike them & not you, you are "intentionally blocking" & must take a wound if an arrow hits them.

If there's an enemy between you & the archer and your moving to engage the other guy with your guard up, it's most likely going to unintentional.

If Lay On has just been called & you riase your weapons to a guard position, when out of the blue an arrow hits your weapon, it's odviously unintentional.

We're not even talking about archers calling others hits, cause that's not how we're supposed to be playing. We are asking to think about what you are doing & if you think your weapons are going to block a shot, or make it more difficult, you are probably intentionally blocking.

So we ask you on, your own honor, to take the arm wound as the rules state. If you repeatly appear to not be honoring the rules & taking vaild hits, you should, & will be, reported to the NC and most likely get a talking to, about the rules & honoring vaild hits.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-17
by Halcon
An arrows pass through weapons rule would just lead to " it wouldn't have hit me, yes it would, no it wouldn't" arguements.

The rule we have is indeed well written & intended. The majority of us just need to understand it & use the "don't be an A-hole rule" rule to get it through to those that don't.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-17
by Halcon
I have expressed my opinions on how this rule is written & intended as best I can. If the Magistrate wish any further council from me all he has to do is ask.

When he makes His ruling on this subject I will glad help explain it to the realm, & I promiss to be nice about it.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-17
by Bard of Myrmidon
You guys are missing the point with the whole "take it Senate" stuff. That's the entire point of a clarification, to solve an issue until it can be taken to Senate. You're only using an obvious and redundant standpoint as an point of view.

I don't disagree that Pat has final say. I was simply stating my opinion. I don't expect him to retract his ruling just because I was "whining". That's his privilege since we elected him as magistrate.

My real concern is that (to me) the ruling seems unnecessary. It does not solve the problem as it was presented on here. The problem being that people were doing something that the rules clearly state causes a light wound to a limb. The first ruling that was made would be a change I'm the rules if it went to Senate because it goes from saying something CANNOT be done to saying that it can be done under certain circumstances. The second ruling only rewords what is already in the book.

This entire conflict is spawned from people not enforcing clearly written rules, not because of grey areas.



1 Like (Bard of Myrmidon Likes this) Comment Share

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-18
by BaiterofBAMC
Inox said "More and more, I am coming around to the idea that arrows should be considered to pass through weapons."

Inox, Do it. I will cosign on that.

Cuts out the intentional and unintentional bs. If it hits a weapon, pretend it wasnt there and take a hit of where the trajectory would have taken the arrow. Easy, simple done.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-18
by mardux zulammar
Inox, I will also cosign that if you write it.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-18
by Sir Havoc
Count me in as well Inox.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-18
by Magistrate
Thank you everyone who has spoken up on the discussion about arrows and blocking.

" Arrows and javelins must impact by their tips in order to inflict damage; glancing hits do not cause damage. If an arrow is intentionally blocked, caught, or deflected by a participant through means other than a shield, that participant suffers a light wound to the limb that blocked the arrow, regardless of armor. The same penalty applies to a participant who interferes with the flight of a javelin by its tip."

Specifically if a player deflects a arrow by use of a weapon or hand and they are not a monk they are required to take a light wound in the arm doing the deflection regardless of skin spells or armor. Just because you have a magical skin does not impart the ability to move fast enough to perform deflections only allowed to the monk class by either weapon or hand. The damage caused in this case is a penalty for doing something strictly against the rules.

To be clear if your weapon is struck and you had no idea an arrow was coming at you and you did NOT place your weapons to act as a deflection point then and only then you do not have to take a wound. If your weapons are not between you and the archer and they are struck by a arrow and you did nothing to try and target the arrow either by leaving the weapons where they were to act as a shield for another person then again it would not be counted against you for you were not using the weapon to deflect anything and it is incidental contact.

If a arrow hits your weapon and the weapon is between you and the archer and is acting in any way shape or form as a deflection tool you are to take a wound to the arm dropping the weapon to the ground ASAP.

Regardless if we have been as a group doing passive blocking for years the rules are clear on this so follow the rules or if you do not like them how they are now stated go threw senate to change them.

Thank you everyone for your patience and all the feedback on this issue.

In service,
Cailen

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-21
by Sir Aethilgar
Magistrate wrote:
If a arrow hits your weapon and the weapon is between you and the archer and is acting in any way shape or form as a deflection tool you are to take a wound to the arm dropping the weapon to the ground ASAP.


Question - Is that 'take a wound to the arm' regardless of armor or 'take an arrow hit to whatever armor is on that arm'?

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-21
by Sir Havoc
Player takes a wound, not a hit.

The best way to further clarify that is "The player takes a "light" wound to the arm"

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-22
by Magistrate
"Question - Is that 'take a wound to the arm' regardless of armor or 'take an arrow hit to whatever armor is on that arm'?"

If you intentionally use a weapon to block a arrow either passively or actively then the penalty result is a would to the arm doing the blocking regardless of skin or armor.

If you move your arm and the arrow hits your arm instead of your chest as you are trying to avoid the arrow then it is a red hit to the armor if armor is worn (or skin if skin is worn) or a wound to the arm if no armor is worn.

Think of it this way - if the arrow hits you take a armor hit - if you hit the arrow take the wound.

Wearing armor or skin does not convey the ability to block arrows like a monk.

make sense?

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-23
by fingers630
ah but with skin you just take the arrow, laugh, and mess up the archer :)

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-24
by Inox
Fingers,

If you intentionally block, you take a WOUND, regardless of protection. That's what Cailen is saying.

I agree.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-24
by exoduscleric
I'm pretty sure he means you just open your arms and take the arrow. Much as you could do with heavy armor, rather than blocking with weapons or anything at all.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-24
by Inox
Yup. That's always an option, too.

Re: Blocking Arrows with Weapons

Posted: 2013-10-25
by fingers630
Yep Ill intentionally block it with my gut =)