armor question

[coryblack_666]

I don't even have the book yet, but will first chance i get.  But when me and some friends were doing some combat tests we came across a question that we couldnt find in his book.   If you take a definite hit but your toughness and armor put the damage in the zero or negatives, do you take a minimum of a level one hit or is it nothing?

[Ashren Va'Hale]

no, its a level 0 wound, unless you would like it to be a houserule that if you are hit its a level one min. that would make the game even deadlier!

[Darren Hill]

However, blows to the head can still stun a victim, causing shock, even if no damage penetrates. So you might be able to stun him long enough to get a practically unopposed attack in, and that should be able to get through high armour.

[coryblack_666]

oh ok, we used minimum damage 1, because when my character was fully suited some of the other guys had a hell of a time hurting my guy. I was going to be the brute force of the team. The description of him was "Built like a brick shithouse." Big stahlnish guy who relied on his armor for the most part. He carried a dopplehander.

It was my first time playing, but my stratagy became to swing or thrust with full force everytime. If i landed i usualy did some pretty heafty damage. If i missed i usualy got a scratch. Im sure we were probably doing the combat while missing some aspects of it, but that's what happend when we were running combat tests.

[Salamander]

oh ok, we used minimum damage 1, because when my character was fully suited some of the other guys had a hell of a time hurting my guy. I was going to be the brute force of the team. The description of him was "Built like a brick shithouse." Big stahlnish guy who relied on his armor for the most part. He carried a dopplehander.

It was my first time playing, but my stratagy became to swing or thrust with full force everytime. If i landed i usualy did some pretty heafty damage. If i missed i usualy got a scratch. Im sure we were probably doing the combat while missing some aspects of it, but that's what happend when we were running combat tests.

Again, be careful about this. If an opponent decides to counter, you are stuck with nothing and he feeds off of your successes. This means that the harder you hit (pending his successful counter) the harder he hits you. If he is smart and packs a warhammer and ends up faster than you & or feints etc, he can kill you pretty quick, regardless of your armour.

[Bankuei]

Right, and let's not forget...

In face to face play, there's tons of strategies one can pull off to counteract armor...  Such as kicking them down a flight of stairs, tripping, running them down with a horse, running away and dropping something heavy on them, dropping a net on them, etc.  For nasty siege battles, pouring burning hot oil on fully armored guys is particularly mean.

Or you could always do the peasant move, kill the horse and either pike the guy to death, or mob him and stick'em with dagger in the eye.

Chris

[Valamir]

The armored guy of doom is a very nasty combat monster (there are other ways to get nasty combat monsters also), but also has its vulnerabilities

Vulnerability #1) Accuracy and Improved accuracy.  I bet there's some portion on your body that is not sword proof.  And the guy with the accuracy edge will find it and make you pay for your lack of defense.

Vulnerability #2) Fatigue.  Keeping track of fatigue isn't that cumbersome, but goes ALONG way towards cutting the armored tank down to size.  Play defensive, full evade like a big dog and wait for armor boys CP to dribble away due to fatigue.  Then kill him dead.

Vulnerability #3) High strength opponents with anti armor bonuses (like half swording and pole axes).  Want to see an armored tank cut down to size in a hurry...give a pole axe to a strength 5 or 6 opponent with a decent size combat pool, and see how long the no defense tactic works.  

Its a hell of a nice thing to have a full suit of plate...but don't get too cocky with it.

[Bankuei]

Also, let's not forget some of the fun things that also have worked historically...

1) Dehorsing

Kill the horse, watch him fall.  The armor is not designed to absorb falls that well, and now you've got 20-60 extra lbs on you as you take the big dive.  "Falling well" is not just training, but also a serious part of being able to see how your falling, which is tough if you've got the full face mask helmet going on.

It may not kill ya, but stun you enough to catch a dagger in the eye.

2) Get kicked down stairs

Again, falling, and also doesn't require massive damage be done.

3) Drop something heavy on the guy

What's that?  Your helmet reduced your Perception...awww, too bad.

:)

Chris

[Morfedel]

My problem with the heaviest armors is that it seems to make a full-harnessed-character almost impossible to land a blow on an unarmored foe, combat pools being equal; generally, it seems like the following happens:

1) Heavy armor guy launches an attack; Unarmored Guy parries with a larger dice pool, having more dice left for stage 2.

2) Stage 2: Unarmored guy either bounces his blow off armored guy completely, OR he does a level 1 wound, over and over, whittling the armored guy away.

With the first possibility, it seems like you end up in a stalemate, while in the second, the unarmored guy whittles away at the armored guy, who doesn't have the dice pool to keep up.

Then again, I haven't run much of TRoS yet. Are we doing something wrong? :)

[Darren Hill]

My problem with the heaviest armors is that it seems to make a full-harnessed-character almost impossible to land a blow on an unarmored foe, combat pools being equal

This is a concern of mine, too. While looking through old threads, I seem to remember noticing Jake say if he were to do armour again he'd probably use lower CP penalties. I wonder what those penalties would be...

[Mike Holmes]

But this is totally realistic.

If I'm a guy in heavy armor, and you're not, and we have all the time in the world, you're going to just staty out of range (evades, big parries), and wait for me to make a mistake. Eventually, I'll tire. That's when you hook my leg, send me sprawling, hop on top, and pry me open like a can of sardines.

Armor is effective. That's why people wear it. There is no "balance".

Mike

[Darren Hill]

If I'm a guy in heavy armor, and you're not, and we have all the time in the world, you're going to just staty out of range (evades, big parries), and wait for me to make a mistake. Eventually, I'll tire. That's when you hook my leg, send me sprawling, hop on top, and pry me open like a can of sardines.

I don't dispute that. The question is when they are actually exchanging blows (rather than one keeping out of range), does the advantage shift too much to the lightly armoured foe?
I don't know, but it concerns me that it might.
After all, as you say:

Armor is effective. That's why people wear it. There is no "balance".

But if you take two equally skilled people using the same weapons, give one light armour and the other heavy armour, and know that the light armoured character is more likely to win, then there is a problem.
If this is the case, armour is very much not effective - it is a hindrance.
At the level of normal but still competent soldiery, I suspect this is the case. (But they won't be able to afford the heaviest armour, anyway.)

[Mike Holmes]

That's why armor is for the battlefield, and not for duels. Actually, I still give the advantage to the guy in the armor, even in the duel (he has automatic successes to compensate). All he has to do is play smart, and he'll win before fatigue becomes a factor.

In a battle, you have to win quick. No time to let that armored foe get tired, or you'll be fighting two armored foes. Kill your target and move on. This is really hard when you aren't armored yourself. Better get some friends to help.

That all said, if you want to go more realistic, just reduce each armor pen by one to start and see how that does for you.

Mike

[Darren Hill]

Actually, I still give the advantage to the guy in the armor, even in the duel (he has automatic successes to compensate). All he has to do is play smart, and he'll win before fatigue becomes a factor.

Just to nitpick: yes, the armour guy gets automatic successes for the purpose of taking damage. So he can afford to defend with fewer dice - but in doing this, he is relying on losing his parry roll, just not by enough to actually hurt. And he needs to win to counter-attack.

One valid tactic for the armoured guy may be to let his opponent strike, and put enough in defence to make it a weak or no blow, thus forcing the attacker to put more of his dice into attack. The armoured defender holds back a small number of dice - 1-3 say. Sooner or later that attacker, as he gest frustrated, will make a big first exchange attack, and a low second exchange attack. The armoured defender lets the second attack land and strikes with his few dice, hoping to finish his undefending opponent.

Either that or steal initiative and terrify his opponent.

[Lance D. Allen]

And he needs to win to counter-attack.

Negative, Ghost-rider.

He needs to win an exchange to attack *first*. A large difference. Now, if armored guy is also packing a shield, it is perfectly viable option to opt not to defend, then use simo. block and strike as his attack. His strike is automatically the second strike, but his defense is in there in time to meet his opponent's attack. Likewise, if you think you're lucky enough, tough enough, or just desperate enough, you can opt to ignore defense altogether, and just smash his head after a few exchanges, when he gets into the routine of you defending. Of course, be wary of feints at this point, but...

To throw in an example, as I so enjoy doing.. My player party was once attacked by a small band of brigands; hungry peasants driven to highway robbery to supplement their income by an insanely grasping king. As such, they weren't the best of fighters, but they managed to survive the chain-mailed man on horseback to the point that he didn't even bother drawing his weapon, but defaulted to brawling and kicked the peasant in the forehead after getting nailed a few times for no damage. The peasant died with a broken skull and neck (7 ST with 8 dice thrown into the attack will do that..). The armored man on horseback was uninjured, despite being hit three times with no defense other than his chainmail.