Interception?

[Brian Leybourne]

Just something that has been festering in the back of my mind for a while now.

The use of armour (you yanks would say armor) in TROS is very passive. Other than shields, your armour is either there or it's not, and a good attacker can and will work around it by not attacking you where your armour is (and even more so if he has the accuracy gift).

But what about the defender? Shouldn't he get a chance to counter that? Obviously this is covered by his parrying, evading or blocking an attack, but what about the possibility of trying to direct an attack at a more heavily armoured part of the body?

For example, if someone swings a blade at my arm, and I happen to be unarmoured there, as a last resort I might want to throw my hand in the way because I have AV2 gauntlets on and I would rather take the blow there. Or if a thrust gets past my defenses and is heading for my belly, I might want to quickly duck down, hoping to take the blow on my breastplate instead.

I haven't really put too much thought into it, but was thinking something akin to a terrain roll, using CP and with a difficulty based on, I don't know, the location and the number of successes the attacker has? Maybe success would then let you adjust the d6 hit location roll by +/- 1, something like that.

Thoughts? Does this sound interesting or is it unnecessary or even unrealistic?

Brian.

[Lyrax]

Sounds like a pretty decent optional rule.  I'd probably make it a terrain roll, and give a TN of 5 or 6 for the hand or arm, a good TN of 6 for the head and a TN of 7 or so for the chest (catching it on one's breastplate?  Not too easy, but probably doable).

[Spartan]

It's kind of like the "Accuracy" gift, only in reverse, isn't it?  Kind of a neat idea.  Perhaps you could make it a skill...  like the Body Language skill... except that instead of gaining CP, you could shift your opponent's location die by one for every success...

Of course, this doesn't take into account using a hand to block to take the damage, but perhaps that it better covered by the Block maneuver anyway.

Of course, terrain rolls would function as well, but I just thought I'd throw a couple of ideas in anyway. :)

-Mark

[Brian Leybourne]

Thats cool, the idea is for people to throw in ideas! I do quite like Lyrax's suggestion though, I must say.

[Thirsty Viking]

Weapon strikes are prety quick, other than a hand/arm parry,  I'm not sure how applicable this is.   If it is declared before the defence roll,  allow a CP activation cost ?  Has to be arms/hands for 2 CP or immeadiately adjacent area for 4CP.  After the defence roll...  it's too late.

This is just my opinion,  and some possible number of activation dice.

An alternative would be to allow defender to call his defence in such a way that if the attacker wins by a margin of one success,  the blow lands where defender wanted it,  but if 2+ success it strikes where aimed.  Again immeadiately adjacent, or hands only.

[Jake Norwood]

Well...sounds like an "aw crap" rule to me, although those things have their place. I wouldn't ever want to get struck by most weapons, regardless of armor...just sounds like a bad idea. Then again, there are times where it's that or death...

Maybe just make a parry role with that part of your body providing the TN...arms are 5, legs 7, head 7 or 8...

Jake

[Thirsty Viking]

only head parry I'd allow is an attack to the face,  catching it on the helm... maybe

[Mokkurkalfe]

I agree with Thirsty Viking here. I don't think you can realize your parry will fail and then put some armour in the way instead. It goes too fast.
Blocking with your hand is covered by the rules, right? As Jake said, give the other body parts a TN and
I've thought for some time of a gift, something like "Quick", "Agile" or "Evasive", which works like Accuracy, but it effects your opponents d6 roll instead of your own. This would only work after an Evasion though.

What I'd like to see is some way to concentrate your first line of defence(i.e. weapons/shield) on different, usually unarmoured parts of the body. Is this realistic, possible, or perhaps even both?

[Lyrax]

I think it depends on situation.

If I'm wearing a breastplate and no head, I'll deflect hits to my head... into my chest if I need to.

HEY!  Maybe you could give a TN of 1 or possibly even 2 lower (than normal parrying) to deflect a hit into a nearby body part!  A neck strike into my helmeted head, a groin thrust to my armored legs...

If successful, the attacker would get 1/2 of his TOTAL successes, plus his weapon and strength as normal.  That would make people cautious about using it, but it makes a decent "Aw, crap" rule.

[Bob Richter]

The use of armour (you yanks would say armor)

Some guy named Webster didn't believe in retaining the unpronounced "u."

I quite agree. :)

As to the idea...hm. Hadn't thought of it. It would make a good Gift. Sort of a defensive version of accuracy. Also like the idea of the "forearm-armor parry."

I'll implement these in my games and see how they fly.

Maybe the "oh, crap!" emergency parry could work on a 2 to 1 basis, with 2 CP dice being spent on each die for the armor parry. A single success would be enough to redirect it, and each additional one might deflect it (reducing the total damage) this is consistent with the other sudden change in tactics, the feint.

[Thirsty Viking]

I think it depends on situation.

If I'm wearing a breastplate and no head, I'll deflect hits to my head... into my chest if I need to.

HEY!  Maybe you could give a TN of 1 or possibly even 2 lower (than normal parrying) to deflect a hit into a nearby body part!  A neck strike into my helmeted head, a groin thrust to my armored legs...

If successful, the attacker would get 1/2 of his TOTAL successes, plus his weapon and strength as normal.  That would make people cautious about using it, but it makes a decent "Aw, crap" rule.

I don't know...  this sounds like a lot of problems...  perhaps the attacker only has his success reduced buy half the the defenders success...  no more than half his armor value.  as for taking head shots to the chest....  i only see overhand shots being taken on the sholders.  best way for this to happen is on a low marin od success by the attacker i think.

[Brian Leybourne]

If I'm wearing a breastplate and no head

You're not wearing a head?

Wow, that's dedication. At least you don't have to worry about head attacks then.

Brian.

[Brian Leybourne]

The use of armour (you yanks would say armor)

Some guy named Webster didn't believe in retaining the unpronounced "u."

I quite agree. :)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that English (note.. that's English, not American *grin*) is a phonetic language. It's not. That's why you have to have pronounciation guides in the dictionary.

And don't get me started on letters Webster thought were superfluous. Swapping "s" for "z" and visa versa is pretty harmless (except in school spelling bees, perhaps), but in some cases your spelling is just wrong. For example, the metal is Aluminium, not Aluminum. The entire planet (except Americans) spell it with the "i" because that's the actual scientific name for the metal. Only uncle Sam has to be different...

Brian.

[Spartan]

And don't get me started on letters Webster thought were superfluous.

This is English... there ARE no superfluous letters. ;)

For example, the metal is Aluminium, not Aluminum. The entire planet (except Americans) spell it with the "i" because that's the actual scientific name for the metal.

Ah, the one Americanism that has crept into Canadian English.  I'll have to change my pronounciation and spelling forthwith (in honour of the recent Royal visit to western reaches of the Dominion of Canada), and hope the rest of my countrymen follow suit... ;)  

Back to the topic at hand, it is a good "Aw, Crap" rule... but to avoid abuse of it, would it be prudent to require a player to SPEND an SA point?  That way it wouldn't get used very often, but could be used to get players out of a jam that might otherwise derail the campaign.

-Mark (who is humming "Rule Brittannia" as he writes this...) ;)

P.S... colour, armour, honour... ;)

[Thirsty Viking]

And don't get me started on letters Webster thought were superfluous. Swapping "s" for "z" and visa versa is pretty harmless (except in school spelling bees, perhaps), but in some cases your spelling is just wrong. For example, the metal is Aluminium, not Aluminum. The entire planet (except Americans) spell it with the "i" because that's the actual scientific name for the metal. Only uncle Sam has to be different...

Brian.

Please....   You don't understand.  "Uncle Sam" isn't involved in declaring official  "American" language.    That is part of our problem.   Webster was just some bloke who wrote a dictionary and created his own standard.  Needing a dictionary that reflected language used here  (much higher blend of incorporated indian, and immigrant languages other than english) it was adopted by our TEACHERS and became the standard of fact, not law.     If we could get "American" declared the official Language of the country... We'd be better off.  As it is we are watching the nation divide itself,  and immigrant subcultures maintaining seperation  instead of merging with the society and flavoring the language.  Those of us who see this are opposed by  "kind-Hearted" multiculturalists.   Oh well,  as they say.  Good intentions pave the road to #$%%. What we need is laws that put all education and Governement buisness in "American".   If someone wants to live here and work here  it should be thier responsibility to acquire "American" to deal with our society.   When I worked in a Hispanic country I learned sufficient spanish to get by.  If it means that immigrant children spend 2 years in school learning english before continuing on and graduating highschool,  thats fine, we need to pay that cost.  And yes I volunteer with the Local English Second Language Programs.

Stepping down off of soapbox.