Runes of Victory and Called Shot

[Rich H]

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.

Understood but what you've stated still means you'd have to adjudicate certain scenarios when they cropped up in your game which is why I've asked what they would be - ie, answers to 1), 2), A) and B). Whether you go with wording, spirit, etc you'd still have to make a decision. So, what are they and why?

[doctheweasel]

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.

Understood but what you've stated still means you'd have to adjudicate certain scenarios when they cropped up in your game which is why I've asked what they would be - ie, answers to 1), 2), A) and B). Whether you go with wording, spirit, etc you'd still have to make a decision. So, what are they and why?

From my perspective, a weapon with Runes of Victory would never fumble. So "no" to all.

EDIT: on the rules side of things, I would rule the intent is that EYE results are treated as GANDALF, but that would be driven from the name more than anything else.

[Rich H]

From my perspective, a weapon with Runes of Victory would never fumble. So "no" to all.

EDIT: on the rules side of things, I would rule the intent is that EYE results are treated as GANDALF, but that would be driven from the name more than anything else.

So...

1) No
2) No
A) Called Shot Success
B) Called Shot Fail (but not a Fumble).

[Rocmistro]

Doc, I can agree that narrative and 'fluff' text can be used to inform readers of the authors intent, but I think you're taking it a bit too far. I appreciate your post as a reminder to get not too 'rules-lawyerly'.

But "Runes of Victory", examined without regard to the rules text, could then also be interpreted to mean that no attack ever fails. It's a rune of victory, after all! We demonstrably know this is not the case, however, because the rules text underneath that clarifies exactly what the Runes of Victory, in fact, does.

The rest of this discussion is then just a careful examination, then, of that same text. I really don't think it's trying to subvert the natural intent of what Runes of Victory are supposed to do.

[Rich H]

Doc, I can agree that narrative and 'fluff' text can be used to inform readers of the authors intent, but I think you're taking it a bit too far. I appreciate your post as a reminder to get not too 'rules-lawyerly'.

I hope Doc didn't mean I was being a "rules-lawyer" as that would be insulting and inaccurate as discussing points of clarification isn't rules lawyering. I'm sure he didn't.

But "Runes of Victory", examined without regard to the rules text, could then also be interpreted to mean that no attack ever fails. It's a rune of victory, after all! We demonstrably know this is not the case, however, because the rules text underneath that clarifies exactly what the Runes of Victory, in fact, does.

That's a great point; perhaps it should be called "Runes of Fumbles-Be-Gone" instead.

The rest of this discussion is then just a careful examination, then, of that same text. I really don't think it's trying to subvert the natural intent of what Runes of Victory are supposed to do.

Not at all, just clarifying specific situations that are going to occur in our games.

[Glorelendil]

Funny, in this whole discussion I had never thought about the specific language of the name. Certainly "Runes of Victory" could be interpreted to mean that the Feat die can be considered to have two Gandalfs (when using that weapon).

[Rocmistro]

Doc, I can agree that narrative and 'fluff' text can be used to inform readers of the authors intent, but I think you're taking it a bit too far. I appreciate your post as a reminder to get not too 'rules-lawyerly'.

I hope Doc didn't mean I was being a "rules-lawyer" as that would be insulting and inaccurate as discussing points of clarification isn't rules lawyering. I'm sure he didn't.

I'm sure he didn't either Rich. That was my word, after all, not his, and it was 2nd hand-presumed hyperbole at that.

[Rich H]

Funny, in this whole discussion I had never thought about the specific language of the name. Certainly "Runes of Victory" could be interpreted to mean that the Feat die can be considered to have two Gandalfs (when using that weapon).

... Which, again, would increase the chances of a piercing blow and a wound. I'm really not sure that's the intent or spirit of this rule.

[Glorelendil]

Funny, in this whole discussion I had never thought about the specific language of the name. Certainly "Runes of Victory" could be interpreted to mean that the Feat die can be considered to have two Gandalfs (when using that weapon).

... Which, again, would increase the chances of a piercing blow and a wound. I'm really not sure that's the intent or spirit of this rule.

Yup.

So, possible interpretations:

"An Eye is actually a Gandalf"
Implications: Cannot fumble on Called Shot, but an Eye is also a Pierce.

"An eye is simply an automatic hit on a normal attack"
Implications: Can still fumble on a Called Shot, although less likely because TN is automatic so all it takes is a single Tengwar regardless of total on dice. An Eye is not a Pierce.

[Rich H]

So, possible interpretations:

"An Eye is actually a Gandalf"
Implications: Cannot fumble on Called Shot, but an Eye is also a Pierce.

"An eye is simply an automatic hit on a normal attack"
Implications: Can still fumble on a Called Shot, although less likely because TN is automatic so all it takes is a single Tengwar regardless of total on dice. An Eye is not a Pierce.

Yarp.

And a third one...

"An eye cannot fumble on a Called Shot attack, it's read as a Gandalf, even if the Called Shot attack fails (ie, no tengwars)"