Using a combination of points 1 & 2...can someone with an Avoidance of 1 use a Wager that lowers Avoidance by 2? I assume yes, since otherwise it becomes too nit picky.

John

You can think it is nit picky, but using something you don't have doesn't sit right with me.

Awesome, thanks for the heads up.

-Vic

I would assume you would need an Avoidance of 2 to wager 2. I'm in the same boat with Eric on this one. If you're wearing armor that would preclude having the necessary Avoidance to wager, you'll have to up the Avoidance or decrease the armor.

This is a bit different for something like a Stance. A fighting man wears heavy armor so he can stay aggressive in a battle.

This will make those with heavy armor have more advantages then. Armor already gives good damage reduction at the cost of low Avoidance. If they can also go aggressive and get the bonuses with no further penalties, it might make it the 'default' method.

Perhaps any Avoidance under 0 could penalize something else? Maybe every point of your Avoidance you wager below 0 gives the attacker 1 more Die for Damage?

John

Yeah, this is starting to confuse me too. If you can't wager a resource you don't have, an Aggressive Stance should not be possible if you have an Avoidance that's been reduced to 1 or less. Unless, in this case, the wager applies to the base Defense before the Armor reduction is considered. By that definition, a character is always able to go Aggressive because even the lowest Avoidance starts at 2 (unless there is a flaw I'm forgetting).



This was my first thought too. Only downside is, the whole thing becomes a wash. There really isn't a point to wearing good armor if your opponent just bypasses it. So if the intent is for Armor and the Aggressive Stance to compliment each other, this doesn't work. OTOH, giving the opponent extra dice for his ATTACK roll might.

But you know what? All this speculation and arguing over a handful of words Eric has tossed out is silly. I think we need to see the actual errata/clarification/change (or at least a solid draft) before we start gnashing teeth and poking holes in it.

You're right, the Die should be on the attack. You're also right we should see it first.

John

Feeble Ability, with the other ability set at 2.

As it is, armor ends up a wash pretty quickly. After all, a lower Avoidance means you will be hit more often. Since excess successes on the attack also add to damage, lowering Avoidance also means you are more damaged. The exchange ratio of Armor Value to Armor Penalty for existing armor is not in the armor wearer's favor. That doesn't even account for the movement skill penalty associated with Armor Penalty...

Armor is out of style unless you have a horse to carry you around. It is not an accident that the weapons are light and mobility is key.

I recommend the Smithsonian History of Warfare series if you are interested. Specifically: "Warfare in the Seventeenth Century" by John Childs. It was 1 of the books I read in preparation for the new edition.