forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Rich H wrote:The Hope point is being spent for Protect Companion in order to stop that companion from being hit.

The way it is written, the point is spent in order to become the target of the attack, and then the attack "is resolved normally". I'd do it before the roll.

I can see what you mean, with hope sometimes being spent for no useful effect, but on the other hand, if I was defending somebody, I wouldn't wait to see if the attacks are going to hit, I'd just get in the way.

Yusei wrote:

Rich H wrote:The Hope point is being spent for Protect Companion in order to stop that companion from being hit.

The way it is written, the point is spent in order to become the target of the attack, and then the attack "is resolved normally". I'd do it before the roll.

I can see what you mean, with hope sometimes being spent for no useful effect, but on the other hand, if I was defending somebody, I wouldn't wait to see if the attacks are going to hit, I'd just get in the way.

Agreed... It's whether you as the reader class the principles of Hope usage as more important than 'realism'. Personally in a game with very strong elements that place fun and playability over adherence to realism I prefer the former option rather than the latter.

We have already discussed it several times. The success of spending a Hope point is 100%: you become the target of the attack instead of your protected companion. As I see it 8and the rules are written) you interpose yourself in front of the Big Bad Guy that wants to smash the head of your companions and face him with determination, putting yourself in harm's way for your companion's well being. Then you might be hit or not. I find this much more Hope-centric and fellowship-focused than the alternative.

However, you seem to disagree about the use of Hope and require some metagame here: if he is hit I will decide to interpose myself or not. if he is not hit, I will save the Hope point for later. I might even look at the dice result if my LM does that in public, and decide to interpose myself in the attack only in case it would hit my companion, but not me. I do not like that at all. We need to agree to disagree and move on, since this has come up 3 times in the last 2 weeks, at least. As the rules are written it works as we are saying, but as usual you can hose rule as much as you want. TOR is not a specially consistent or well-written rulebook (when it comes to the actual rules; something extremely surprising given that Nepitello is a boardgame designer, where rulebooks tend to be worded with extreme care) so no biggie here

Cheers,
Xavi

Rich H wrote:Agreed... It's whether you as the reader class the principles of Hope usage as more important than 'realism'. Personally in a game with very strong elements that place fun and playability over adherence to realism I prefer the former option rather than the latter.

Well, me too. The difference is in the way we play it. If I understand correctly, if A wants to protect B from an orc:
- you roll for the orc, tell A the attack would hit B, he spends hope, you tell him whether it hit him or not.
- other LMs here would roll for the orc, tell A the attack would hit B, and whether it would hit him, and then A decides to take the blow or not
- I say the orc targets B, A decides to take the blow, I roll.

I'm not sure my way is any less fun or playable. The way I narrate the outcome, if Hope was spent, then the orc was going to succeed against B, but A decided to intervene. Whether it hits him depends on the roll.

Yusei wrote:- you roll for the orc, tell A the attack would hit B, he spends hope, you tell him whether it hit him or not.

That's correct. The Hope is spent to protect your companion from a successful blow, but you may not be so fortunate. I don't think it's in keeping with how Hope works to offer any less but more than that is, usually, too much. YMMV and all the usual caveats.

As I said in the other thread, I read the rule as being resolved in the following series of events: Player A declares Forward or Open stance. Player B declares Defensive Stance and that she will use Protect Companion to shield Player A. Orc C declares an attack targeting Player A. Player B spends a point of Hope and shifts the Orc's target to herself. The attack is resolved against Player B. Player A is free to attack Orc C, and Player B could declare and resolve an attack against any opponent who was pared up with her.

As I see it, no one knows if the declared attack would have hit Player A, and Player B is able to become the target for as many attacks declared against Player A as she has available Hope. Player B can choose not to shift the targeting of any attack to herself if she wants to, although doing this for all attacks in a round defeats the purpose of declaring a Protect Companion action.

Hi, Dave, just to be clear I actually think what you describe is a per the RAW so in my opinion you are correct in your interpretation should you want to apply the rules as it has been written.

Yes, it is my understanding that this is RAW. Additionally, if the Protected Companion is the Fellowship Focus of the character taking the blow then I would expect the Hope point to be refunded as it is being spent to protect the Focus. This last is my interpretation, I am not sure it is spelled out in RAW.

DavetheLost wrote:Yes, it is my understanding that this is RAW. Additionally, if the Protected Companion is the Fellowship Focus of the character taking the blow then I would expect the Hope point to be refunded as it is being spent to protect the Focus. This last is my interpretation, I am not sure it is spelled out in RAW.

You're right, it isn't spelt out in the RAW, and strictly Hope refunds are only valid when the Hope is spent to boost a skill check with an attribute bonus. I do agree with you though, and said it here (or in another thread) that I'd let the Hope point be refunded as it's very much in keeping with the spirit of the rules with regard to Hope and protecting your character's Fellowship Focus.

DavetheLost wrote:Additionally, if the Protected Companion is the Fellowship Focus of the character taking the blow then I would expect the Hope point to be refunded as it is being spent to protect the Focus.

I'm not sure this is very important, but I wouldn't refund the Hope point if this is a tactical choice on the part of the players, something they do often. Your friend falls, you spend Hope to catch him, you deserve your point back. Your friend is fighting a strong foe and seems to be having a hard time, you protect him, then you deserve your point back too. But if your friend fights in open stance because you're here to take the blows, then I believe you should definitely lose Hope.