Just as a matter of interest, I know people have already raised the problem of TROS letting people choose where to strike and encouraging people to always strike the most unarmoured spot.

I would be interested to hear how this actually plays out during a game as I am currently talking to some potential players who raised this issue, essentially saying that to avoid this they will either have to wear armour on all locations equally or not at all. We all agreed that this doesn't seem entirely satisfactory or accurate.

I do like the idea of choosing where to strike and exploiting weak spots, though repetitive strikes to the same area seem a little dull. I have been trying to explain that the TROS does have a number of things that will in play mix things up a bit more than complete armour and repetitive strikes. These are:

1. The alternate rules for location help considerably. Certain forms of armour are more effective against certain forms of weapons.

For example, rapiers are primarily thrusting weapons so people will tend to wear armour that protects their body such as a breastplate. This allows people to free up their limbs with no armour. The rapier wielder can go for these areas but looses CP to do so. The same goes for arrows. Swords and mass weapons tend to be slashing weapons so shields and armour on the limbs becomes more important.

This seems reasonably historically accurate from my limited knowledge. Weapons and armour developed together. It also tells me that I should look to develop "prominent" fighting styles in my setting for TROS as this should effect what armour people consider. It will also make for interesting cross culture fights - renaissance Rapier wielders wearing breastplates versus medieval Vikings with arming swords, shields and chain mail.

2. The fact that some areas of the body are more vital than others. People will protect their heads and body more because of this (and because doing so doesn't effect mobility as much. This doesn't mean that its good tactics to be hit in your arms and legs but its better than a sword up the nose. I can see defenders spending more dice to defend less armoured areas such as arms and encouraging attackers to go for their armoured areas in a hope the defender will not be so defensive.

Overall I am quite happy that TROS will provide some very real strategic decisions regarding armour and hit locations despite what the first glance of the rules suggests. However anyone's experiences of the rules in play are greatly appreciated.

Luke

Skywalker wrote: Just as a matter of interest, I know people have already raised the problem of TROS letting people choose where to strike and encouraging people to always strike the most unarmoured spot.

We all agreed that this doesn't seem entirely satisfactory or accurate.

Skywalker wrote: I do like the idea of choosing where to strike and exploiting weak spots, though repetitive strikes to the same area seem a little dull.

Skywalker wrote: It will also make for interesting cross culture fights - renaissance Rapier wielders wearing breastplates versus medieval Vikings with arming swords, shields and chain mail.

Skywalker wrote: I can see defenders spending more dice to defend less armoured areas such as arms and encouraging attackers to go for their armoured areas in a hope the defender will not be so defensive.

Skywalker wrote: Overall I am quite happy that TROS will provide some very real strategic decisions regarding armour and hit locations despite what the first glance of the rules suggests.

What I have done is give an extra die to the defender for repeated strikes to the same area. By repeated, I mean two and row, and by same area I mean zone. So if you want to slash to the IV (overhead strike), and then stab to the XIII (head?), that's two different zones.

Btw, note that if you have a shield there's no real need to wear armor on your shieldarm.

-Jeff

Cheers for that Jaif, I may use that as well.

Spartan, I agree that the ability to attack weak spots is a good thing. I was more interested in how the exploitation of those weak spots plays out in the game. Does TROS promote realitsic strategy in the ways I tried to set out (in theory) or does it just result in people picking one area and repeatedly attacking the one spot (which seems dull and unrealistic)? Its good to hear that it lends itself to the first more.

Does anyone know if Flower of Battle will cover the historical development of weapons and armour i.e. what armour was used in relation to which weapon? TROS does cover styles from a range of centuries. It would be an interesting feature especially when developing settings with different technological levels.

Skywalker wrote:
Does anyone know if Flower of Battle will cover the historical development of weapons and armour i.e. what armour was used in relation to which weapon? TROS does cover styles from a range of centuries. It would be an interesting feature especially when developing settings with different technological levels.

I think having various tech levels in FoB would be good. Some of us run games where not all the weapons, armor, and fighting styles exist. A small table that shows during what historic time periods various weapons, armor, and fighting styles were available. I think that would be helpful to many GMs.