Ye Olde Inn

Originally my spiked shield was 'Any skulls rolled in defence hit the Attacker'. I liked it because it's simple but obviously this is seriously OP. It was supposed to be the Heroes reflection of the Orcs Waaagh mechanic, 'Skulls rolled in defence hit the attacker, even if killed'. With a recent update to 'Defended with white shield rolled in the initial attack roll' (thanks to a few other threads here), instead of a freshly rolled defence.

This reflected mechanic with a well equipped Hero means an average roll would be devastating, blocking all the hits a monster could deliver and killing it with the counter. It's not a problem for monsters to have the rule... as they'd likely die from not rolling enough shields in the first place.

New Armoury Rule
Spiked Shield: Any extra White Shields rolled in defence are hits against the attacker.

Thematically i think this fits perfectly. If faced with 2 skulls and the Hero rolls 4 White shields, that's 2 hits against the attacker. The extra unneeded power of the block are hits. Which is how this should work.

Any thought? I'm unsure about the word 'extra', should this be 'excessive' hits? what 1 word explains it perfectly?

"Any white shield rolled in defence in excess of blocking all hits are in return hits against the attacker."

I know how you're a stickler for brevity, but I can't think of any shorter wording.
You talk sense there, thematically.

knightkrawler wrote:"Any white shield rolled in defence in excess of blocking all hits are in return hits against the attacker."

I know how you're a stickler for brevity, but I can't think of any shorter wording.

Brevity. I've just learnt (or should that be learned) an new word, thank you.

That wording would be perfect for the actual rule book but the line is too long for the table.

mitchiemasha wrote:Any extra White Shields rolled in defence are hits against the attacker.

Thematically i think this fits perfectly. If faced with 2 skulls and the Hero rolls 4 White shields, that's 2 hits against the attacker. The extra unneeded power of the block are hits. Which is how this should work.

Any thought? I'm unsure about the word 'extra', should this be 'excessive' hits? what 1 word explains it perfectly?

I would maybe go with - "Any excess White Shields rolled on defense become return undefended hits on the attacker."

Or shorter version - "Any excess White Shields rolled count as hits on the attacker."

j_dean80 wrote:I would maybe go with - "Any excess White Shields rolled on defense become return undefended hits on the attacker."

Or shorter version - "Any excess White Shields rolled count as hits on the attacker."

The 1st suggests that the attacker doesn't get to defend to those return hits.
The 2nd might suggest that White shields rolled in attack would count as hits, as defense isn't specified but... It does specify 'the attacker', which would make it defence only. This could work.

After a few more hours thought!
Some may interpret the words "Any excess White Shields rolled count as hits on the attacker" as... White Shields rolled when you attack, are hits on yourself. Believing the weapon to have a negative in use.

Currently I'm going with
"Spiked Shield: Excess White Shields in your defence roll hit your opponent"

Thank you for the input. Any more thoughts welcomed and appreciated. I think about this way too much.

i guess it's clear enough for your table. it's your style anyways, so it's fine. some might ask and debate the meaning of "in excess". as in "in excess of what"?

You could cap it to one skulls worth of an attack if you have any excess shields, so the attacker loses 1BP if you have any excess white shields and the attacker didn't roll any black shields.

You could also only allow it's attack if you successfully defended their attack.

Just ideas, I think I'd definitely make it only if you successfully defend.

Gold Bearer wrote: I think I'd definitely make it only if you successfully defend.

Yes... that should be how it works. I moved away completely from the idea of it being skulls.

knightkrawler wrote:i guess it's clear enough for your table. it's your style anyways, so it's fine. some might ask and debate the meaning of "in excess". as in "in excess of what"?

It's driving me insane, lol! The words scrambling in mind, constructing, deconstructing, rearranging. Some sort of 'Word plague' or 'curse'!!!