Runes of Victory and Called Shot

[Glorelendil]

I don't see a problem with allowing the Called Shot to succeed and also applying the Fumble rule.

Erm, that's not correct. As per the RAW if you roll a Sauron but get enough tengwars then no fumble occurs - the Called Shot is a success. A fumble only occurs on a failed Called Shot (ie, not enough tengwars) and you also roll a Sauron.

Oh, right. I was thinking of Prepared Shot.

So, wait, what's the problem? Was the OP trying to interpret it as the Called Shot being successful even without tengwars, because the Runes of Victory makes it a "success"? Now that I would not agree with. All Runes do is make Eyes count as Gandalfs for the purposes of determining whether or not you hit; they don't affect other kinds of success. Otherwise you could argue that a Gandalf also makes a Called Shot automatically successful, which of course it doesn't.

EDIT: another attempt at my last sentence: "For Runes to make a Called Shot automatically successful on an Eye would require that Called Shots by default be automatically on a Gandalf, which they are not."

On the other hand, if somebody rolled an Eye, 1, 1, 1, 6 on a Called Shot, I would rule that a success. But an Eye, 5, 5, 5, 5 would be a fumble.

[Rich H]

edit - actually does not end up with a piercing even under normal circumstances as it only treats Sauron as a hit, not a Gandalf. The only thing debate therefore is if Runes make Called Shots fumble immune and turn called shot misses with a Tengwar due to not getting the TN into hits.

Not sure how to parse that but my understanding of what you want to know is:

1) If an EYE is rolled on a failed Called Shot with Runes of Victory does it result in a fumble.

2) If an EYE is rolled on a successful Called Shot with Runes of Victory does the Called Shot also mean the opponent has to make a Protection Test.

So, I'd say:

1) Yes, as the Called Shot doesn't produce automatic hits in the same way that 'normal' attacks do - the success of the attack is based on tengwar results from the success dice rolled.

2) No, as the Called Shot has hit but the way Runes of Victory is defined it just states it's an automatic hit not that it produces a piercing blow.

[Rich H]

I suppose there are other scenarios...

Rafferty the Hobbit decides to try for a Called Shot with his shortsword. The TN is 16 and he has 3 success dice. His roll is:

A) EYE + 6 + 6 + 1 = 13

... Unlucky for some! That would normally be a miss and a fumble as he hasn't met the TN and has rolled an EYE. However Runes of Victory means that the attack is an automatic hit so therefore the Called Shot succeeds as it meets the TN (the EYE makes it an automatic hit) *and* critically has the required number of tengwars.

Conversely, if the roll would have been:

B) EYE + 4 + 4 + 1 = 9

... Then that would be a fumble as the Called Shot missed (it didn't produce enough tengwars) and also rolled an EYE which cannot be read as an automatic hit as no tengwars were rolled - ie, just reading the EYE as a G does not mean the Called Shot succeeded.

Hmmm, I think this is open to debate still as some may disagree with what I would adjudicate above. I think (A) is okay, but I could see the argument that (B) shouldn't result in a fumble but would still miss.

[doctheweasel]

Runes of Victory should ward against Failure.

The rest is rule semantics.

[Rich H]

Runes of Victory should ward against Failure.

The rest is rule semantics.

Stating "the rest is rule semantics" is more than a bit of a reach.

A Gandalf doesn't guarantee success [for Called Shots] so the discussion regarding Called Shots is a valid one and your statement above, does not match with how they work - ie, Runes of Victory only changes an EYE to a automatic hit like a G rune. This doesn't always produce an automatic success for Called Shots as it's more complex than that due to tengwars affecting the failure/success dynamic.

[Glorelendil]

Runes of Victory should ward against Failure.

The rest is rule semantics.

Um, I think the first part is a valid consideration: the spirit of Runes of Victory might well be that "all Eyes are actually Gandalfs", which would mean you can't Fumble. But that's by no means clear or certain, so I think that declaring the alternate interpretation as just "rule semantics" is a bit much.

[Rich H]

Um, I think the first part is a valid consideration: the spirit of Runes of Victory might well be that "all Eyes are actually Gandalfs", which would mean you can't Fumble.

... Would also mean EYEs add to the probability of producing piercing blows. I think the rules are written as they are in order to avoid this interpretation.

[doctheweasel]

Runes of Victory should ward against Failure.

The rest is rule semantics.

Stating "the rest is rule semantics" is more than a bit of a reach.

A Gandalf doesn't guarantee success [for Called Shots] so the discussion regarding Called Shots is a valid one and your statement above, does not match with how they work - ie, Runes of Victory only changes an EYE to a automatic hit like a G rune. This doesn't always produce an automatic success for Called Shots as it's more complex than that due to tengwars affecting the failure/success dynamic.

My point is that arguing over the text of the rules will produce a result based on a somewhat arbitrary perspective of how certain rules interact.

The narrative, on the other hand, provides a clear answer.

I would go with the narrative in this case.

[Rich H]

The narrative, on the other hand, provides a clear answer.

I would go with the narrative in this case.

Which, in your opinion, is what based on the examples with regard to Called Shots? A Gandalf doesn't produce an automatic hit for Called Shots all the time, so the different permutations still need commenting on (assuming you want to help out the OP with an unambiguous response). Just saying 'the narrative provides a clear answer' is actually, demonstrably, not the case with regard to the above examples as the rule may produce success in certain conditions but not in others.

EDIT: So, your answers to my posts where I've outlined some scenarios/examples - labelled 1), 2), A) and B).

[doctheweasel]

The narrative, on the other hand, provides a clear answer.

I would go with the narrative in this case.

Which, in your opinion, is what based on the examples with regard to Called Shots? A Gandalf doesn't produce an automatic hit for Called Shots all the time, so the different permutations still need commenting on (assuming you want to help out the OP with an unambiguous response). Just saying 'the narrative provides a clear answer' is actually, demonstrably, not the case with regard to the above examples as the rule may produce success in certain conditions but not in others.

I don't want to get into a fight here, Rich. If you feel that the answer lies in determining exactly what effect the enchantment provides and applying it to the Called Shot rules, then don't let me stop you.

My point is that there is another perspective that I didn't see represented. I look at the enchantment, ask "what is it supposed to do" based on its title, and rule on it from there. To me, the rules should bend to fit the story, not the other way around.

That may not be satisfactory to some — and obviously isn't based on your response — but it may ring true to others.