I am pretty new to this game. I have read the book and I am familiar enough were to find things if I do not recall them. I am also GMing it for my friends, so I had a few questions I wanted to get resolved, so we weren't just making stuff up... we try to use the rules as much as possible. My questions are kind of lengthy, want to give a good foundation for the replies, so please bear with them. Also I am new to this site and beg your forgiveness for any questions that might have been answered in previous threads. So my questions were...

1. What exactly does shield do for a character? One of the guys is a Flail/sheild character, well we were running mock combats to familiarize everyone with the system... he and another were fighting and he was hit… we know that in order to block the attack you use your CP that you set aside for blocking and roll the target number of the shield. well the attacker succeeded, but the blocker did get a success... we figured that it meant that he blocked a portion of the attack but not successful enough to deflect it. So that is were we had the question... the attack was on the right side of the body, can the sheild even block that side, are you supposed to stand with the sheild facing your opponent and your body sideways reducing area to be hit like you should, does it add to the armor that you have even though you didn't block the attack fully, and any other comments?

2. Two opponents rolling red dice... this is a clarification question really. When two people throw red dice they both roll off according to the directions using thier Reflex against their weapons target number if they keep rolled tie, they keep rolling until they don't tie right (all thier stats that should have broken ties are the same)? What I gather from what is stated is that the one that wins the initiative goes first, what if one wants to use the manuever "Simultaneous Block and Strike," then the one who won initiative succeeds at wounding the other enough to kill him in one blow does the other get to strike also before he hits the ground dead? The same would go for if the one wouldn't have used the manuever right, if they both were just going to normally attack, would the other still be able to get thier attack off? Also the rules state that the one who has the lower reflexive value declares first, but attacks are resolved with the one who has the highest reflexive value first. I was wondering why this was so? Shouldn’t the one who is slower have the benefit of seeing what the opponent might do before he acts himself, thereby changing his attack?

3. I am a little uncertain about were exactly weapons are allowed to target… From my understanding the reading in The Codex of Battle all swinging weapons hit areas I -VI, and VII – XIV was for thrusting/piercing weapons… however the charts in back say that cutting weapons can hit I – VII, puncture VIII – XIV, and Bludgeon can hit all areas? So which is correct that the type of damage hits a certain area or the way the weapon is used, or both (the way the weapon is used as a foundation of the starting numbers (I – VI, or VII - XIV) and then the type of damage the weapon causes for the exact location)?

Heavenlyrock wrote: I am pretty new to this game.

1. What exactly does shield do for a character? One of the guys is a Flail/sheild character, well we were running mock combats to familiarize everyone with the system... he and another were fighting and he was hit… we know that in order to block the attack you use your CP that you set aside for blocking and roll the target number of the shield. well the attacker succeeded, but the blocker did get a success... we figured that it meant that he blocked a portion of the attack but not successful enough to deflect it. So that is were we had the question... the attack was on the right side of the body, can the sheild even block that side, are you supposed to stand with the sheild facing your opponent and your body sideways reducing area to be hit like you should, does it add to the armor that you have even though you didn't block the attack fully, and any other comments?

2. Two opponents rolling red dice... this is a clarification question really. When two people throw red dice they both roll off according to the directions using thier Reflex against their weapons target number if they keep rolled tie, they keep rolling until they don't tie right (all thier stats that should have broken ties are the same)?

What I gather from what is stated is that the one that wins the initiative goes first, what if one wants to use the manuever "Simultaneous Block and Strike," then the one who won initiative succeeds at wounding the other enough to kill him in one blow does the other get to strike also before he hits the ground dead?

The same would go for if the one wouldn't have used the manuever right, if they both were just going to normally attack, would the other still be able to get thier attack off? Also the rules state that the one who has the lower reflexive value declares first, but attacks are resolved with the one who has the highest reflexive value first. I was wondering why this was so? Shouldn’t the one who is slower have the benefit of seeing what the opponent might do before he acts himself, thereby changing his attack?

3. I am a little uncertain about were exactly weapons are allowed to target…

2. Two opponents rolling red dice... this is a clarification question really. When two people throw red dice they both roll off according to the directions using thier Reflex against their weapons target number if they keep rolled tie, they keep rolling until they don't tie right (all thier stats that should have broken ties are the same)?

I'd leave ties as they are. It wasn't that uncommon for fighters to die on each others' swords. Of course, one can always try to buy initiative as often as you have dice for, I think. Jake?

1. What exactly does shield do for a character? One of the guys is a Flail/sheild character, well we were running mock combats to familiarize everyone with the system... he and another were fighting and he was hit… we know that in order to block the attack you use your CP that you set aside for blocking and roll the target number of the shield. well the attacker succeeded, but the blocker did get a success... we figured that it meant that he blocked a portion of the attack but not successful enough to deflect it. So that is were we had the question... the attack was on the right side of the body, can the sheild even block that side, are you supposed to stand with the sheild facing your opponent and your body sideways reducing area to be hit like you should, does it add to the armor that you have even though you didn't block the attack fully, and any other comments?

What I gather from what is stated is that the one that wins the initiative goes first, what if one wants to use the manuever "Simultaneous Block and Strike," then the one who won initiative succeeds at wounding the other enough to kill him in one blow does the other get to strike also before he hits the ground dead?

3. I am a little uncertain about were exactly weapons are allowed to target…

Brian Leybourne wrote:
You also get the AV of the shield depending on where the attack hit. This has nothing to do with how well you blocked or didn't block, it's taking note of the fact that some parts of your body are covered by default by a shield just because of where you hold it. What's covered is determined by the size of the shield - bucklers might only give their AV against arm attacks, while tower shields should protect everything from the chest to the upper legs on the shield side. There are no hard-and-fast rules for what shields cover what areas, it's left to seneschal discretion.

Aaron wrote:
Now I have a bit of a problem working this one out. Since there is no distinction within the system on which side of your opponents body you have to attack, you can swing either left to right right to left and stab just about anywhere, who in their right mind would ever atack the side the shield protecting? In the combat example he attacks the same side twice. By saying the shield protects the side it is on is ok but unless the rule system suggest I have to attack that side then I never would therefore nullifying the shield advantage. In the case of multiple opponents I suppose it is possible to say one is attacking on one side and the second on the other so one has to try and get past the shield, but since each phase everyone is moving around how do you decide who? And how does a seneschal decide whether that blow you just did/received caused a level 5 wound in the chest blood pumping everywhere or just "decides" it hits the shield and does nothing? I would be interested to know how people are playing shield in their games and whether the rules will be changed in TFOB.

Aaron wrote: Now I have a bit of a problem working this one out. Since there is no distinction within the system on which side of your opponents body you have to attack, you can swing either left to right right to left and stab just about anywhere, who in their right mind would ever atack the side the shield protecting? In the combat example he attacks the same side twice. By saying the shield protects the side it is on is ok but unless the rule system suggest I have to attack that side then I never would therefore nullifying the shield advantage. In the case of multiple opponents I suppose it is possible to say one is attacking on one side and the second on the other so one has to try and get past the shield, but since each phase everyone is moving around how do you decide who? And how does a seneschal decide whether that blow you just did/received caused a level 5 wound in the chest blood pumping everywhere or just "decides" it hits the shield and does nothing? I would be interested to know how people are playing shield in their games and whether the rules will be changed in TFOB.

Brian Leybourne wrote: Spartan is basically right, but a little confusing I think :-)

Shadeling wrote:

Someone with a shield is going to do his or her best to interpose it between themselves and their opponent, hence the block defense. If you could so easily slip apast someone's shield, without any effort, there would not be much purpose for Duck and Weave defense...which in its description says-gets you past your opponents shield. That is my take on everything.

Mokkurkalfe wrote:

Shadeling wrote:

Someone with a shield is going to do his or her best to interpose it between themselves and their opponent, hence the block defense. If you could so easily slip apast someone's shield, without any effort, there would not be much purpose for Duck and Weave defense...which in its description says-gets you past your opponents shield. That is my take on everything.

Aaah. You've cleared away all my doubts on the subject.

Brian Leybourne wrote: The flow of battle dictates which attacks are available following other attacks. It's not particularly reasonable, for example, for a thrust at the legs to be immediately followed up with a swing at the head. I encourage my players to be realistic and logical in which moves follow which moves, and use a carrot/stick approach to make sure they do :-)

Brian.

Durgil wrote:

Brian Leybourne wrote: The flow of battle dictates which attacks are available following other attacks. It's not particularly reasonable, for example, for a thrust at the legs to be immediately followed up with a swing at the head. I encourage my players to be realistic and logical in which moves follow which moves, and use a carrot/stick approach to make sure they do :-)

Brian.

Is there anything out there in the way of a reference that those of use who have absolutely no experience in reenactments go to help in that decision making process?

Understand that the kernel of TROS combat was written entirely on...*gasp*...stuff I saw in movies. Writing TROS is what dragged me into the ARMA several years ago, but the original concepts came before that based on what Shadeling said--common sense and dramatic appropriateness.

I run sheilds like this...my players specify if they're attacking the shield side or not. Usually it ends up not (go firgure). That meanst that the #1 bonus of a shield in my games is the low DTN, followed by the bonus maneuvers. The AV on a shield is really only for folks who are strong enough to bash through the sucker with, say, and ax.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: The AV on a shield is really only for folks who are strong enough to bash through the sucker with, say, an ax.

Jake

Yeah, like that.

See, TROS is caught between two worlds. The first one is that of historical precedent and fiction-that-mirrors-reality.

The second is literature along the lines of TLotR and the other stuff mentioned in the Seneschal and World sections of the core book.

Some items are one, others are the other, and a few are both. Pick and choose to taste.

Jake

thanks everyone for replying... That is pretty much what I thought on most. I figured for the intiative thing that both still get to resolve their attacks because technically they both are swinging at the same time (there is that millisecond difference). I guess I was playing the locations right... just using the charts out of the back for reference of where you can hit. The shield thing I guess is a little confusing to everyone (in a way). I think what I will do is say that depending on the shield's size that it can cover a certain number of areas depending on where the shield was blocking an attack. Say you have a small shield and was blocking blow to your upper legs then it would cover you arm and legs (for example) giving both the AV bonus. I think also that everyone should know that when you get into a fight you are not facing your opponent chest to chest (for lack of a better wording), you are more side ways with either foot in front so you reduce your area of what the opponent can hit (at least this is what you should do). Taking this and using a shield if you are in a Defensive stance you are holding the shield up ready for the attack so it is easier to block an incoming blow therefore keeping your opponent in front of you reducing his chances of hitting someplace unguarded (in which he must use one of those manuevers that lets you get past the shield like feint) therefore getting the AV bonus to everypart (mainly where the attack went). If you are in a offensive stance, you have it in the "normal" position, so if the opponent also tries to strike, you only get the protection of the areas that the shield would "normally" cover. If you have more than one opponent on you, I think the same would apply except that the blocker whould keep their shield on one as much as possible (taking they are in the Defensive stance) and watch the other so if the other attacks the blocker can block them but must spend a die penalty or something to that extent. And for the case of three then the one behind the blocker doesn't have to worry at all about the shield. This looks like it would be the benefit of using the shield (along with the low DTN's), and why everyone hates going against them. It will also force a shielder to use it like it is supposed to be used and that if you have one why not use it. Why have one if you are not going to be using the Defensive stance, that's why you see the ones who live using a shield hold them up until the right time to attack their opponent. I just think this will provide a little more realism and that is the way were are probably going to play it.

Jake Norwood wrote: ...my players specify if they're attacking the shield side or not. Usually it ends up not (go firgure). That meanst that the #1 bonus of a shield in my games is the low DTN, followed by the bonus maneuvers.

Jake

I wouldn't mess with it, mostly because it begins to border on attempting to "account for everything," which simply isn't possible. It's true that many times a shield-bearer's weapon-hand side is "back" and the shield is "front," but when he strikes the back end comes forward, reversing the situation. Thus in a dynamic fight at times either side could be "forward," and therefore a more convenient target. Unless one wants to keep careful track of which side is forward at which time (something that does require significant knowledge of fighting with swung weapons and the multiplicity of European Martial footwoork), then there's no point in trying to reflect it in the dice.

If you really want to, though, it would basically be just a 1-die range penalty, and then only against someone with a shield. Any other combination of weapons wouldn't make a large enough difference.

Although I do know what I'm talking about, here, it is of course still just IMO.

Jake

ps. One of the things I really like about TROS combat is that you *could* account for this with the existing mechanics...it would just be a hassle to do so...not hard, just more bookwork or required declarations and what-not.

I guess that means no new rules are forthcoming.

Jake Norwood wrote:
I run sheilds like this...my players specify if they're attacking the shield side or not. Usually it ends up not (go firgure). That meanst that the #1 bonus of a shield in my games is the low DTN, followed by the bonus maneuvers. The AV on a shield is really only for folks who are strong enough to bash through the sucker with, say, and ax.

Jake

Aaron and Jake, I was thinking of possibly reducing the attacker's CP by one die on the following round where they had attacked an opponent from the side of the attacker's shield if the attacker looses the initiative and chooses to defend with that shield.

Example:
I've got a righthanded knight with a heater on his left forearm and a C&T in his right hand. His opponent uses a round shield on his left forearm and an ax in his right hand. The knight, in an attempt to get by the round shield swings horizontal from left to right to try and hit his opponent on his right side. Now, inorder for the knight to use his shield in the following attack by his opponent, he must sacrifice one die from his CP or he could choose to parry with a higher TN but with no penalty.

Is this getting too nitty-gritty or is this a good realistic counter to players who always attack the non-shielded side of their opponents? I would think that it would at least make them think twice about it.

Durgil wrote: Aaron and Jake, I was thinking of possibly reducing the attacker's CP by one die on the following round where they had attacked an opponent from the side of the attacker's shield if the attacker looses the initiative and chooses to defend with that shield.

Aaron-

Shields are wonderful, but their real utility comes in the availability of maneuvers and the lower DTN. I was a member of the SCA long ago, and my outlook on sheilds really changed when the lower arms and lower legs became "legal" targets upon my departure from the SCA.

On the other hand, if you want to see more kite and heater sheilds in use in your games, the rewarding them as described is a good idea.

Jake

Aaron wrote: Give heater shields an extra dice on block and Kite shields an extra 2. It means if they block for both phases of a combat round they end up 1 die in front. Not alot but it helps counter the CP loss. They are still lacking the versatility of a fighter with no shield. By versatility I mean having more dice to play with in a round.

Aaron-

You know we thought of that before... ignoring the AV on the shields but only for the melee attacks. We figured it could be used for ranged attacks arrows/bolts (hate to reference movies but that seems to be what they were mainly used for). We looked at the benefits were the lower DTN's and maneuvers but didn't think about that suggestion you made. It would prove to make the shield user think more of using his/her shield (making a bonus for using the shield, and a penalty for not). I think that will be a lot easier :). It would still provide the movement mods and combat penalties for not using them (they would be slightly cumbersome).

Jake-

Thanks for you input, didn’t know you were in SCA (kind of cool, and explains for the detailed amount already in this game)… Now that I think about it, it would make the game a little more complicated and prolonged (probably more than my audience has patience for). I just like this gritty realism. Not much of a hack and slash man myself. The people I play with though come from a huge background of AD&D and are still prone to the “Old” ways of thinking. In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area. It will prove entertaining come the actual game :). Hopefully we don’t have to spend another night on character creation because they all died.

Heavenlyrock wrote: Thanks for you input, didn’t know you were in SCA (kind of cool, and explains for the detailed amount already in this game)… Now that I think about it, it would make the game a little more complicated and prolonged (probably more than my audience has patience for). I just like this gritty realism. Not much of a hack and slash man myself. The people I play with though come from a huge background of AD&D and are still prone to the “Old” ways of thinking. In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area. It will prove entertaining come the actual game :). Hopefully we don’t have to spend another night on character creation because they all died.

Heavenlyrock wrote:
Jake-

Thanks for you input, didn’t know you were in SCA (kind of cool, and explains for the detailed amount already in this game)… Now that I think about it, it would make the game a little more complicated and prolonged (probably more than my audience has patience for). I just like this gritty realism. Not much of a hack and slash man myself. The people I play with though come from a huge background of AD&D and are still prone to the “Old” ways of thinking. In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area. It will prove entertaining come the actual game :). Hopefully we don’t have to spend another night on character creation because they all died.

Jake Norwood wrote: I enjoyed my time in the SCA immensely, but the "realism" in TROS comes from my experience in the ARMA (www.thearma.org)

Spartan wrote:
I looked into joining ARMA in Calgary, but they only train on Sundays at noon, while I'm still at work. :(

-Mark

Heavenlyrock wrote: In the mock combats they proved to be more for the attacking then the defending and seriously focusing on the Head area.

-Brian

Yeah, I know what you are talking about. I don't think they quite see it yet but they will. I will still have to throw in a lot of combat, but probably will have to use "weak" adversaries... I don't see much of a non-combat campaign working for the bunch. We tried one game were everyone wanted to take a break from fighting. Oh yeah, it was Exalted. Well, I was the only one who succeeded. My first character I noticed was straying into combat so I killed him and made a new one, which if he gets into a fight he'll go unconscious, but he will be back, if he defends he rocks. Everyone else still made battle monsters. Even in TRoS most went Attibutes A or B and Proficiencies A or B so they could make a "fighter" of sorts. Only one of them valued Skills enough to place it at a B, but is a Mass Weapons & Shield guy. Guess the saying maybe true "can't teach and old dog new tricks," but I also guess we'll see :).

Jake Norwood wrote: We train twice a week out here...hmmm...you're probably not close to NY state, are you?