The Kingdom of the Emerald Hills

It's that time again. If anyone has any clarifications to 7.7 to submit for this years COM meeting, please post them here.

Here is this year's schedule:
March 30th: Preliminary clarification proposals due.
May 30th: Final clarification proposals due.
June 30th: Online voting and requests for discussion close.
July 14th: Clan 2011 Agenda published
July 28th: Clan Circle of Monarchs

Clarifications must be submitted in the form of a question with a yes/no answer. For example: "can a player toss his shield to block a spellball being thrown at him?" or "may a player hold a weapon in the same hand that he is using to wield another weapon?" Each proposal should explain possible reasoning for a yes or no answer.

_________________

Nothing? Really?

_________________

can a caster target equipment while under the effects of awe/fear?

_________________
"Passion overrules Reason" wizard's rule #3 of the Terry Goodkind series "Sword of truth"

It's over a month past the due date. Sorry.

_________________

came up during playtesting of V8, realized it also applies to V7.pie

_________________
"Passion overrules Reason" wizard's rule #3 of the Terry Goodkind series "Sword of truth"

The wording says that you may not attack or cast magic at the caster of the Awe / Fear spell. I would think that encompasses using magic to target their equipment since it is offensive in nature.

However, I agree the wording could be better in the awe / fear spell to include equipment (i.e. "May not attack or cast spells at the caster or his equipment...")

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)

2012 Clarifications

1. Can a Bard purchase the use of a bow (or other weapon not explicitly permitted
to Bards) with Warskill?

Yes. Warskill allows the purchase of any weapon at no cost to spell points, any weapon
on the Weapon Costs for Magic-users list is therefore a valid choice.

No. Warskill does not allow the purchase of a weapon that cannot normally be purchased
by that class.

RRO Recommendation: The CoM should vote “No” on this proposal. Warskill was
never intended to allow access to any weapon, and doing so opens the potential for a host of abuses.

2. A Bard bearing the Neutral magic Presence parries a shot from a Barbarian
aimed at a player other than the Bard. Can that Barbarian ignore the effects of the
Bard's Presence?

Yes. Parrying can be considered an attack on another player's weapon, and therefore an
attack on the Barbarian personally.

No. Parrying a weapon is not an attack, but a defensive maneuver. As such, it does not
count as an attack against the Barbarian.

RRO Recommendation: This is not game breaking either way. For simplicity’s sake a
vote of “No” is best to draw a bright line on what is or isn’t attacking.

3. Can a Barbarian wear a red headband or armband in anticipation of using their
Berserk?

Yes. Red headbands and armbands, unless being used to denote the Berserk status of a
Barbarian, are considered to be part of a player's garb.

No. Red strips are reserved for denoting Red Weapons and Berserking Barbarians.
Wearing a red strip while not under the effect of Berserk is misleading; indicating an
effect that is not in play.

RRO Recommendation: This one is a toss up, and neither ruling is game breaking or
causes more problems than the other. A “Yes” vote makes it easier for Barbarians to go
Berserk without having to break off from combat to tie on a strip at the expense of clarity
for other players. A “No” vote increases clarity on the field by requiring strips to denote
only active effects, while making it more difficult for Barbarians to use their ability in the
heat of combat.

4a. Can non-circular shields be round?

Yes: Round means a shape with an outline that is free from angularity, and consisting of
full, curved lines such as a circle or ellipse.

RRO Recommendation: No Position. Vote “yes” if you want to allow for greater
creativity in shield construction under the current rules. Vote “No” if you want to draw a
bright line as to which shields can be wider than 2 feet.

If 4a is yes then:
4b. Can a teardrop shield be round? (If it is made by a combination of a circle and
an ellipse)

Yes: A shield that is a combination of a circle and an ellipse is still round.

No: A shield that is a combination of shapes is no longer round.

RRO Recommendation: No Position. It seems a stretch to me to say that a teardrop is
round, but doing so will allow for a greater variety of shields to be wider than 2 feet, so
the comment to 4a remains applicable.

If 4b. is yes then:
4c. Can a shield with a concave shape be round? (like a circular shield with a
circular cutout)

Yes: as long as the shield has an outline that is continuously curved, it is still round.

No: A concave shape causes a shield to be non-round.

RRO Recommendation: No. I can see no real battlefield advantage being gained from
having a circular shield with cut outs. However, this is really stretching the definition of
round. If you vote yes you are opening the door to some potentially ridiculous shapes
qualifying as “round” to circumvent the 2’ width restrictions. Crosses and even door
shaped shields could theoretically fall under this rule.

4d. Can a shield with a complex outline that is round when simplified be round? (a
shield with a jagged edge that still has an otherwise round shape)

Yes: As long as the general shape of the shield is recognizable as round it is still
considered a round shield.

No: When the outline is not continuously curved, it is not a round shield.

RRO Recommendation: No position. This is actually less problematic than 4c. If you
are voting on this, 4c passed, so you might as well vote yes on this one.

5. Can a pommel that is less than 6” in length count as Strike-legal to satisfy the
requirement that slashing weapons need at least 2/3 of their length to be Strike-
legal?

Yes: The definition of Strike-legal specifically mentions that Strike-legal may be on
either or both ends of a weapon.

No: The definition of Strike-legal states that this is the only section that may score a legal hit, and the minimum length of Strike-legal in order to score a legal hit is 6 inches for a stabbing tip. Also under weapon construction notes; weapon tips (like pommels) are
mentioned separately from Striking surfaces even though they are given the same safety
requirements.

RRO Recommendation: No. The 2/3 strike legal requirement exists for player safety.
This is not an area that we should be skimping on. Unless a weapon is double ended, the
pommel should not be counted towards the strike legal requirement. Doing so only
encourages people who are trying to min/max their padding requirements.

6. Does Protection from magic allow you to completely ignore ALL magic and
magical effects including visit and cop?

Yes: Protection from magic states "E: Blocks all forms of magic, even beneficial magic
such as Heal and Resurrect." Thus any effect from any form of magic that is not
specifically noted as an exception can be ignored.

No: Protection from magic blocks magics that specifically target or directly affect the
bearer, it does not allow the bearer to ignore all magical effects. Specifically, Protection
from magic does not allow the bearer to ignore indirect magical effects such as those
from: Enchantments that create effects that do not directly target the bearer, like Circle
Of Protection, Force Wall, Magical Projectile, etc.; Magics that directly target their caster
but have effects that indirectly affect others like Visit, Presence, Commune, etc.; Magics
that have a direct target (which Protection from Magic WOULD block) but also have
effects that indirectly affect others like Honor Duel, Sleep, Legend, etc.

RRO Recommendation: As strongly as I possibly can I’m telling you that you need to
vote “No” on this proposal. A “Yes” vote completely screws up magic and magical
effects. It would allow players with Pro-Mag to ignore far too many effects. It would
theoretically allow a sword (or potentially a player) with Pro-Mag to ignore Stoneskin or
other magical armor. To put that in stark terms if you vote yes on this you are breaking
the game.

7. If a Reach (or Long) weapon is one third pommel/handle and the minimum of six
inches of strike legal required to make the weapon stab-legal, must the remaining length of the weapon be covered with at least a half inch of foam as per the Padding rules?

Yes. A weapon is composed of three parts (Strike-Legal, Padding, and Handle.) If a
weapon is required to have a minimum length of two parts, the remaining length of the
weapon must conform to the rules of the third component.

No. As the weapon construction rules do no specify a minimum length of Padding, any
remaining section of the weapon can be of any design, so long as it does not meet the
definitions of either Strike-Legal, Padding, or Handle.

RRO Recommendation: Yes. I can’t even comprehend where the “No” Answer comes
from. Again this is a player safety issue, please do not allow min/maxers yet another
excuse to skimp on weapon safety.

8. Does a scout utilizing Tracking to follow a teleporting player need to know that
there is a teleporting player to track before hand, either by observing the player
casting teleport, or by being informed of someone who did?

Yes. The teleporting player, as per teleport, cannot be noticed in their transit. If the player cast teleport out of sight and hearing range of the Scout, and the Scout does not know a teleporting player is around, the Scout cannot reactively use Tracking. Furthermore, it's a common misnomer from past revisions that a teleporting player must announce "teleporting" while they are in transit, when they can simply announce that they are out of game. In that context, there should be no difference between a teleporting player and a mundane, except that a teleporting player is in transit to a location which will put them
back into game.

No. Tracking represents out of game knowledge, which is why different effects of the
spell use asking a reeve or dead player a question. If a scout sees a player out of game
that he/she believes is in transit on a teleport, the scout may cast Tracking to follow them, even if the scout has no knowledge that a player cast teleport.

RRO Recommendation: “No” is the simplest answer that will cause the fewest in game
arguments and problems. We need to avoid scenarios that require players to pretend that
they don’t know something that they actually do.

9. If Pyrotechnics is cast and used to target armor that is composed of pieces
connected by buckles and straps, are the buckles and straps enough of a
"Substantial Connection" to destroy the entire suit of armor?

Yes. Pyrotechnics destroys an object. The rulebook requires a "Substantial Connection"
to be made between all parts of an object in order to count as a single object. And then
gives a full suit of plate as an example of something that counts as a single object.
Because a full suit of plate is usually connected by buckles and straps, this type of connection is intended to qualify as a "Substantial Connection." Thus all pieces
connected by buckles and straps are destroyed by pyrotechnics.

No. Straps are denoted as not counting as armor unless specifically designed as such
under Armor Construction. Thus straps alone are not enough to qualify as a "Substantial
Connection" to make a suit of armor one piece, and the caster of pyrotechnics would have to specify which part of the armor was targeted for destruction.

RRO Recommendation: I believe the “yes” answer is best supported by the rulebook,
however, neither answer will cause substantial issues or be game breaking.

_________________

I am sooo late for this. Oh well, maybe the following suggestion will percolate in the collective subconscious of EH long enough to reappear next year.


Would a list of game effects considered to "harm" or be "harmful" be identical to a list of game effects blocked by Invulnerability?

Yes: Invulnerability is a catch-all defense intended to keep its bearer completely safe from anything that might incapacitate or kill them, so tying the two concepts together makes sense.

No: There are game effects in the Rules of Play which can reasonably be said to "harm" a player, yet do not appear on the list of effects blocked by Invulnerability in the glossary; these "harmful" effects are and should be allowed to bypass invulnerability. Therefore it would not make sense to exclude those effects by confining the definition of "harm" to "all that is stopped by Invulnerability".

_________________
Matthulhu the Mediocre (Souls Crossing)

Can you give an example?

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)

Well here is an online list of effects removing Invulnerability.

http://amtwiki.net/amtwiki/index.php/Invulnerability

Of these, some do challenge what it means to "harm" or "be harmed" but only if you go for a restrictive, dictionary definition of the word. But in Amtgard, we have "harm" as a set of actions which remains undefined but the meaning of which hinges on what one player can do to another in the context of an active game effect (usually magical).

Circle of Protection: "Person(s)/item(s) inside can’t harm or be harmed by anyone outside the circle."

Commune: "Caster may not harm others. Others within 20 feet may not harm or take hostile actions towards the caster."

Messenger: "Recipient must go straight to destination, deliver message, then return where magic was cast. Cannot harm others nor be harmed, and may not be followed."

Petrify: "He and his equipment cannot be harmed."

Sleep: "Sleeping people cannot be killed. The target and their possessions may not be harmed."

Teleport: "Cannot harm others nor be harmed during transit."

Is this what you're looking for?


There is something of an unwritten understanding with some of these magics is that "harm" means "to take action of any kind", i.e. players in COP and players outside of COP cannot do anything to each other without some antimagic first --but if we apply the common English connotation of "harm" (meaning "to injure physically, morally, or mentally") and take COP's wording literally, a scout or assassin inside an active COP should be able to use Earth Bind or Trap on an enemy player outside. (Not an intended consequence, I'm sure.) And then again, since Heal is a beneficial effect, a nonmagical Heal should be able to pass through the COP protection, could it not? But this isn't really the issue.

Now there are several magics listed as removing Invulnerability which do not fit the confined English definition of "harm"; some explicitly prevent harm, such as Petrify and Sleep. But between the catch-all version of harm (anything you do to me that I don't like) and the restricted version of "harm" (anything that could directly cause a wound or a death) there should be some middle ground we can work with.

_________________
Matthulhu the Mediocre (Souls Crossing)

I meant can you give an example of an effect that is "harmful" but would bypass invulnerability.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)

I went through the list of Death, Flame, Subdual, Control, and Sorcery effects on amtwiki.net and found these items which could be considered 'harmful' (broad definition) but which were not explicitly stopped by Invulnerability:


Honor Duel - can be used offensively to prevent escape from a superior opponent (often the caster).

Legend - if this isn't 'harmful', then neither is Charm, and Charm is on the list.

Lore - similar to Truth and Legend, this can be used to prevent an enemy player from harmful the caster or the caster's teammates as long as the caster maintains the spell with questions that are impossible for the target to confidently reply to in the negative.

Mute - almost as deadly as Stun, given that casters are fairly soft targets.

Silence - An area-based mass Mute...if it were considered harmful and thereby subject to Invulnerability, one would have to rewrite the spell to have Silence remove points over time like a terrain effect.

Steal Life - Most definitely harmful. It amounts to a 'free kill'.

Truth - this magic can be used offensively as a trick to interrupt magic...not 'harmful' in the strictest sense unless the victim has to give up information important to him or his team in the current battlegame.

Wind - not stopped by Invulnerability, but is effectively a long-range Shove (and Shove is stopped by Invulnerability). So we may consider this 'harmful' if Shove is to be.

_________________
Matthulhu the Mediocre (Souls Crossing)

I do not see how Honor duel is directly harmful. It cannot prevent escape from an opponent on it's own. They can still run away.

Legend IS on the list. So ... yeah.

It can delay the target for a maximum count of 100, during which time he and the caster are removed from the game and cannot attack each other, and cannot attack each other for a 100 count after it ends. I don't really see that to be harmful.

I believe it is not on the list of things that take off an invulnerability because it is only potentially "harmful" against 4 of the 12 classes.

I disagree. First off Silence is NOT a mute, because the silencing of this FE only lasts as long as you are in the area. Second I believe it is not on the list of things that take off an invulnerability for the same reasons that Mute is not.

Steal life cannot be stopped by invulnerabilities because (most) enchantments do not function when you are dead. Which is a prerequisite for steal life. Also I don't see a situation in which you would be prevented from "harming" a corpse.

No, it cannot interrupt a spell. this was clarified in 2011. See here.

It is different from shove in that it affects EVERY ENEMY (that is not Pro Mag) in line of sight, and also it gives protection to everyone affected until the effect is over. It is not meant to be "harmful," it is intended to be a minor reset. Also I think it does not strip an invulnerability off because it would strip one off of EVERY ENEMY in line of sight. That is a little too powerful. Again I think this one is a game design decision.

This is kind of a hard question to follow because you appear to get mixed up yourself as to what exactly you are asking.

I think the simple answer to the stated question is no.

There are things that bypass an invulnerability that should not be allowed to be done to people who cannot be "harmed" like a victim of Sleep. And there are some things that ARE stopped by an invulnerability that can EXPLICITLY be done to people who cannot be "harmed" like a victim of Sleep.

_________________

So you can cast Mute on someone who is under the Sleep spell?

_________________
Squire to Sir Everlast of Buttercup

I see no reason that you can't.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)