A possible armor rules variant

[Luke]

I know, I know. I was just trying to point out that there's more options than simply pointy-stick smacking.

I can't say that I myself am particularly distraught at the lack of option number three.

Methinks those who have played the game rarely are.

For me, it's a game play issue. I don't care if doesn't precisely model every face of how armor worked. When that axe is heading for my PC's head, I want his helmet to save him. Period. It quite easy enough to get rope-a-doped and broken in BW.

But those are just my tastes, and who am I to say how you play, right?

enjoy,
-L

[Kaare Berg]

I've been trying to keep my 2C from butting in, alas here they come.

As an advocat for the "classic" armour rules I've just got to say that they work in play. Seamlessly and trouble-free. For me that's the big deal here. If the numbers are yours, fine that's your boat, and I am not saying it is any less than mine.

At first my players had a similar reaction to that of Newsalor. One even used a variant of the palsied man and the knight as an objection. No objections lasted through the first game though.

Sir Knight has a chainmail hauberk, covering his chest and arms, and a bit of his legs. (I'm good natured and give him 5 armour dice at DN 4).
Good odds for surviving a blow or two.

Then he fights a another knight with a sword (VA of one ), and is hit.

He rolls armour 1,3,4,5,6. Easy, he is saved by his chain.

But unlike AC a hit in BW is much more. Rolling a one on an armour die causes you to loose one die from your armour.
 
Suddenly Sir Knight finds himself with 4 dice at DN 5 (4 pluss VA 1). He survived blow one, but his odds are decreasing.

So even though you do not do damage. you still hit and weaken your opponent.

Though the math may not look good. The potential drama in combat does.
Just wait til you see the tension in your players faces as they reach for their armour dice.

As for

But those are just my tastes, and who am I to say how you play, right?

You getting soft Luke?

[Thor Olavsrud]

Personally, I'm in favor of Luke's alternate armor rules, where VA adds to OB. It's clean and fast.

Does it suck when you roll a superb strike and your opponent just shrugs it off with armor? Sure. But let me tell you from experience, there's an incredibly visceral feeling when you're facing off against a heavily armored opponent and just bashing him...tearing his armor apart. He comes into the fight confident and aggressive because he has his armor to protect him, and the look on his face when he realizes that he desperately needs to go defensive before he reaches total armor failure is priceless. Carving him up afterward is just icing.

Really, I think the AC comparison is completely wrong. There are a number of combat tactics that will leave his armor out of the equation. You can charge him and lock him into submission, and his armor won't do squat. In fact, the armor may put him at a disadvantage to his Natural Defenses roll. Once you've got a lock, slip a dagger through his visor at your leisure.

[Luke]

I know, I know. I was just trying to point out that there's more options than simply pointy-stick smacking.

I can't say that I myself am particularly distraught at the lack of option number three.

Methinks those who have played the game rarely are.

For me, it's a game play issue. I don't care if doesn't precisely model every face of how armor worked. When that axe is heading for my PC's head, I want his helmet to save him. Period. It quite easy enough to get rope-a-doped and broken in BW.

But those are just my tastes, and who am I to say how you play, right?

enjoy,
-L