Parry with modifiers on recipient unit

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Parry with modifiers on recipient unit

    New

    So I'm pretty sure I've been playing something wrong with my local group concerning Parry. I just reread a couple sections on parry and modifiers and priority. I think I have this worked out now but there is still one thing that remains kind of ambiguous to me. I'd like to clarify this for sure.

    Firstly let's lay out the relevant sections of the rules.

    6.A Values Set to a Fixed Number
    When a value or a roll is set to a certain value, replace the modified value or the required roll with that value. For example, if an attack is subject to the effect “The attack has its Armour Penetration set to 10”, you replace the attack’s Armour Penetration value with 10.
    A Characteristic may be set to the value of another model’s Characteristic. In this case, the value of the other model’s Characteristic is taken after applying any modifiers which the other model is subject to. Modifiers that affect the recipient model will then be applied to this value (following the rules in Priority of Modifiers below). For example, ...

    6.D
    Priority Step Modifier
    1) Values set to a certain number and values set to another model’s value. If the other model’s Characteristic is modified, apply these modifiers before setting the Characteristic.
    2) Multiplication and division. Round fractions up. 3) Addition and subtraction.
    4) Rolls always or never succeeding or failing on certain results, and Characteristics always or never set to a certain value or range of values.

    21.D.b.7 - Parry
    Parry can only be used against Close Combat Attacks from the Front Facing. The model gains one of the following effects, whichever would result in a higher Defensive Skill:
    • The model gains +1 Defensive Skill.
    • The model’s Defensive Skill is always set to the Offensive Skill of the attacker.

    So we read the parry rule as an "always set" priority rule (4), since the wording has "always set" in it. This would normally mean other modifiers on the recipient unit are ignored for the most part since (4) is the highest priority. But the second paragraph in section 6.A seems to indicate you set the value to opponents modded value and then apply modifiers to the recipient unit in priority order.

    I would think to make this clear that "always" should be removed from the parry rule. Therefore it falls under the priority (1) and other modifiers would apply as normal. I see that priority 1 mentions set to another models value and priority 4 mentions always set to a certain value or range. But in this case it is ALWAYS set to another models value which isn't exactly clear which priority it is.

    1) So is my new interpretation correct?
    2) Should "always" be removed from the parry rule?
  • New

    Here's how it works:

    Example 1:
    Say unit A with Def 3 and parry is fighting unit B, which has Off 3.
    You apply the two options for parry and check which one results in a higher Def for unit A:
    - applying +1 Def results in Def 4
    - (always) setting it to the attacker's Off, i.e. 3 in this case, would result in Def 3
    Def 4 > Def 3, so you use the first option.

    Example 2:
    Now unit A with Def 3 and parry is fighting unit B, which has Off 5.
    Again, you apply the two options for parry and check which one results in a higher Def for unit A:
    - applying +1 Def results in Def 4
    - (always) setting it to the attacker's Off, i.e. 5 in this case, would result in Def 5
    Def 5 > Def 4, so you use the second option.

    Example 3:
    Unit A with Def 3 and parry is fighting unit B, which has Off 4 and is the target of a spell that gives +2 Off.
    Before applying the two options for parry, you need to know the attacker's Off, which is 4+2 = 6. Then you check which one results in a higher Def for unit A:
    - applying +1 Def results in Def 4
    - (always) setting it to the attacker's Off, i.e. 6 in this case, would result in Def 6
    Def 6 > Def 4, so you use the second option.

    We don't want the Def value of the model with parry to be modified by any other rules, which is why the "always" part is necessary.
    Imagine the unit with parry is subject to e.g. an effect that reduces the unit's Def by 3 while fighting an enemy unit with Off 5.
    Without the "always" keyword, we would first apply the "set to" mechanic from parry, to set the Def value to 5, and then modify Def according to the priority of modifiers by -3.
    With the "always" keyword, the -3 modifier becomes irrelevant as you first reduce by 3 and then set Def to the attackers Off.
  • New

    While I totally agree on your 3 examples. The last thing you mentioned is where I think the ambiguity lies.

    Example 4:
    Unit A with Def 3 and parry and is the target of a spell that gives -2 Def is fighting unit B, which has Off 5.
    First you check which one results in a higher Def for unit A:
    - applying +1 Def results in Def 4
    - (always) setting it to the attacker's Off, i.e. 5 in this case, would result in Def 5
    Def 5 > Def 4, so you use the second option.

    But what about the spell modifier?

    Well, the second paragraph in 6.A says:
    A Characteristic may be set to the value of another model’s Characteristic. In this case, the value of the other model’s Characteristic is taken after applying any modifiers which the other model is subject to.

    Then what I see as the important part here:

    Modifiers that affect the recipient model will then be applied to this value (following the rules in Priority of Modifiers below).

    The priorities that deal with modifiers set or always set are 1 and 4.

    1) Values set to a certain number and values set to another model’s value. If the other model’s Characteristic is modified, apply these modifiers before setting the Characteristic.
    4) Rolls always or never succeeding or failing on certain results, and Characteristics always or never set to a certain value or range of values.

    1 is the only one that specifically mentions setting to another model's value and distinguishes setting to a certain number as separate.
    4 only specifies always set to a certain value and does not mention anything about to another model's value.

    This is why I think it is ambiguous. The paragraph in 6.A specifically states applying modifiers to the unit with parry after setting to another model's value. And the modifiers tend to agree with that since only priority 1 mentions setting to another model's value which would mean other modifiers would apply afterwards.

    My conclusion to make this less ambiguous is that either:
    1) always should be removed from the parry rule if my new interpretation is correct
    2) priority 4 should also specifically mention always set to another model's value if my original and your interpretation is correct.
  • New

    Ah, now I understand ;) .

    I think there is a misconception:

    Sections 6.A to 6.C do not correspond to priority steps 1 to 3 - in that case, we wouldn't have any section for priority step 4.
    Sure, multiplication/division and addition/subtraction only happen during steps 2 and 3, but the "set" mechanic explained in 6.A may be applied in step 1 or 4, depending on the use of the second keyword "always".

    So following the rules in 6.A, you modify the attacker's Off, then set the defender's Def to that value, then modify according to 6.D Priority of Modifiers (i.e. during step 4, "always set"). In the example above, the subtraction modifier is not applied as it would happen before priority step 4.

    There could theoretically be modifiers that are applied to the Def value of the model with parry, e.g. "The model's Defensive Skill is always set to 1" (as you have to apply modifiers within a priority step in the order that results in the lowest value, see 6.D).
  • New

    Ok I'll buy this interpretation which is how we've been playing it but I still think the wording of the rules is a bit ambiguous.

    Priority step 4 should use the same wording as Priority 1 but with the added "always". That would make things much clearer in my opinion.

    On a related note, as a possible rule change on parry, I would like to propose:

    D.b.7 - Parry
    Parry can only be used against Close Combat Attacks from the Front Facing. The model gains the following effect:
    • If the model's modified Def is less than the modified Off of the attacker, the attacker suffers -1 to hit.
    The +1 Def when the defender had a higher Def already almost never makes a difference to the toHit roll and when it did the matchup is already terrible for the attacker anyways. This also would streamline the parry rule without the binary choice of which option is better at two different priority steps.

    In addition, this change allows an attacker with a much higher Off (difference of 4 or more) to still make use of that high Off and would then hit on a 3 instead of a 4 where normally they'd be a 2.

    This would also slightly distinguish things like Orcs with Parry vs Feral Orcs with Parry even just slightly.

    This doesn't effect many matchups but would for some characters/elites fighting low Def parry units.

    Furthermore, this also allows spell modifiers to make a difference when up against a parrying unit or to benefit a parrying unit with a low base Def.

    Parry should give a benefit to defense for sure but it shouldn't be an effective magic resistance to Off /Def augments/hexes.

    My 2 cents anyways. Maybe consider for version 3.0?
  • New

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    Ok I'll buy this interpretation which is how we've been playing it but I still think the wording of the rules is a bit ambiguous.

    Priority step 4 should use the same wording as Priority 1 but with the added "always". That would make things much clearer in my opinion.

    On a related note, as a possible rule change on parry, I would like to propose:

    D.b.7 - Parry
    Parry can only be used against Close Combat Attacks from the Front Facing. The model gains the following effect:
    • If the model's modified Def is less than the modified Off of the attacker, the attacker suffers -1 to hit.
    The +1 Def when the defender had a higher Def already almost never makes a difference to the toHit roll and when it did the matchup is already terrible for the attacker anyways. This also would streamline the parry rule without the binary choice of which option is better at two different priority steps.

    In addition, this change allows an attacker with a much higher Off (difference of 4 or more) to still make use of that high Off and would then hit on a 3 instead of a 4 where normally they'd be a 2.

    This would also slightly distinguish things like Orcs with Parry vs Feral Orcs with Parry even just slightly.

    This doesn't effect many matchups but would for some characters/elites fighting low Def parry units.

    Furthermore, this also allows spell modifiers to make a difference when up against a parrying unit or to benefit a parrying unit with a low base Def.

    Parry should give a benefit to defense for sure but it shouldn't be an effective magic resistance to Off /Def augments/hexes.

    My 2 cents anyways. Maybe consider for version 3.0?
    Then you need to change the rules for Distracting as well, since that dont stack with other negative to hit rules.
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
    ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
  • New

    if you do that is a huge nerf to units with shields, because as someone sais you can't modify distracting so... my IG that now is tough with parry + distracting, u need 5+ to hit them, will be what... 4+? 3+ against powerful chars?

    No one will use them.

    You have the counter for parry... paired weapons and flank/rear, no need for more nerfs
    Kislev army thread, We need You!
    New Army book Hetmanate of Ukray