Sable Shield (clarification)

[Konrad Klar]

Unique. Shield. If a strike against the bearer is successful, he is not wounded. Instead, the attacker makes a roll (draws a #)-if this result is greater than 6, discard Shield of Sable. ...boiling and crawling with black shapes, some squat and broad, some tall and grim, with high helms and sable shields.-LotRIII

A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful. A
detainment strike will not discard the Sable Shield.

In my opinion CRF does not address real issue precisely. Real issue is "how to deal with a successful strikes that would not wound a character facing them"; they include, but are not limited to strikes from detainment attack.

Proposed clarification:

"An untapped bearer who decided to not to tap against a strike that would wound him will not tap if the strike is successful. A successful
strike that would not wound a bearer does not cause a dice-roll from Sable Shield. Performing a dice-roll from Sable Shield replaces all effects resulting from wounding a bearer by a strike, but does not replace an effects that result from successful strike."

Situation where last sentence may be applicable is successful strike from Fell Turtle against bearer. Returning a company to a site of origin is a result of successful strike, it is not a result of a wounding character by the strike.

[Bandobras Took]

"Detainment strikes and effects from strikes which would tap the strike's target do not tap the bearer of Sable Shield. Sable shield may prevent becoming wounded, but all other effects of successful strikes apply."

[Konrad Klar]

"Detainment strikes and effects from strikes which would tap the strike's target do not tap the bearer of Sable Shield. Sable shield may prevent becoming wounded, but all other effects of successful strikes apply."

Is it citation, or proposal?
In both cases I totally disagree. It is against what text of Sable Shield says.

[Bandobras Took]

You're right. I forgot the part about detainment strikes not causing a discard of Sable Shield. Otherwise, that is what ICE wrote:

A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful.

This applies to detainment strikes as well as Neeker-breekers. It's hard to imagine it applying to anything else, as these are the only kinds of things that would cause tapping on a successful strike.

Why, what do you think it means?

And what in the proposal contradicts the text of Sable Shield?

[Konrad Klar]

Why, what do you think it means?

"A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful."
means:
"An untapped bearer who decided to not to tap against a strike that would wound him will not tap if the strike is successful."

"A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful." assumes that character may tap to strike, that is not correct assumption (and it is a common error). Untapped character may decide to not to tap against a strike, i.e. he remains untapped if a strike is unsuccessful* (at cost of some penalties to prowess).

Why:
Because a performing a dice-roll from Sable Shield replaces all effects resulting from wounding a bearer, and tapping an untapped character is not a result of successful strike that would wound him. Bearer of Sable Shield would be otherwise wounded by such strike. He would be tapped only if such strike would be not successful and he will not decide to not to tap against strike* (and take penalties to prowess).

And what in the proposal contradicts the text of Sable Shield?

I could repeat everything or just say: dice-roll from Sable Shield only replaces an effects of wounding a bearer (that would happen if not Sable Shield); rest is implication of that.

*) Sounds complicated? It would explain why ICE (and some players) prefer to say "tap/not tap to strike", but "tap/not tap to strike" is not correct.

[Bandobras Took]

ICE's errata/clarification extends the capacities of Sable Shield. It wouldn't be the first time ICE has done something like that. The text of Sable Shield has nothing to do with tapping as the result of a successful strike, but the erratum does.

If such an effect is too powerful, then we could by all means change it, but such is an erratum, not a clarification, of what ICE said.

[Konrad Klar]

The text of Sable Shield has nothing to do with tapping as the result of a successful strike, but the erratum does.

It has something. If result of successful strike would be wounding, the dice roll is made instead.
Without Sable Shield results could be: successful (defender wounded), ineffectual (defender taps), failed (defender taps).
Because Sable Shield alters only effects of wounding and does not change successful strike into not successful strike, untapped defender that would be otherwise wounded does not tap.

I have realized that it applies to any untapped character not only that which takes -3 to prowess and decided to not to tap automatically after not successful strike.

Proposed clarification is now:

"An untapped bearer facing a strike that would wound him will not tap if the strike is successful. A successful strike that would not wound a bearer does not cause a dice-roll from Sable Shield. Performing a dice-roll from Sable Shield replaces all effects resulting from wounding a bearer by a strike, but does not replace an effects that result from successful strike."

[Bandobras Took]

That is still an erratum, not a clarification, though.

[Konrad Klar]

Which "that" is still erratum?
What I propose as clarification, or what CRF states (whiteout stating that it is an erratum)?

[Theo]

I would say first part of CRF is meant as a clarification, albeit a poorly worded one (should be, perhaps, "A bearer who chose to avoid being tapped when facing the strike still does not tap from having faced the strike."). I don't think it is intended to prevent tapping due to successful detainment, or Wisp of Pale Sheen, etc. But that is my "clarification" of the clarification. Or is the reasoning that sable is such a sign of power that it grants a free pass against detainment questioning? Literally, the CRF sentence is meaningless.

The second part about detainment is an addition, so erratum.

Your proposals are errata. Nothing in current rules stops the Sable Shield roll due to e.g. a successful prisoner-taking attack.

[Konrad Klar]

The second part about detainment is an addition, so erratum.

Strictly speaking, no successful strike (from normal, detainment, other attack) causes a discarding of Sable Shield.
What causes a discarding of Sable Shield is a result of a dice roll.
This dice roll is made instead of wounding of bearer.

So what you consider as erratum is (in my opinion) a sloppy worded statement of the following fact:
because a successful strike from detainment attack does not cause a wounding a bearer, it in turn does not cause the dice roll, that would cause a discarding of Sable Shield.

[CDavis7M]

"A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful."
means:
"An untapped bearer who decided to not to tap against a strike that would wound him will not tap if the strike is successful."

I agree. Instead of being wounded, the shield might end up being discarded. As for detainment attacks, I think the 2 CRF statements (see above) for Sable Shield were given in separate contexts. The first statement does not refer to detainment attacks. A successful detainment attack would obviously tap the character but it would not trigger the effect of Sable Shield, which is dependent on the wounding results of a successful strike (the 2nd statement).

"A bearer who did not tap while facing a strike will not tap if the strike is successful." assumes that character may tap to strike, that is not correct assumption (and it is a common error). Untapped character may decide to not to tap against a strike, i.e. he remains untapped if a strike is unsuccessful* (at cost of some penalties to prowess).

This is not a correct assumption. Untapped characters may NOT "decide not to tap against a strike." Untapped characters do not decide to tap or not. They decide the take the -3 modification or not. Tapped characters have no decision and get the -1 modifier.

As stated in the rules, an untapped character MAY decide to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being automatically tapped following the strike sequence. The untapped character may also decide to not take the -3 modification (and so would be automatically tapped later), but this action itself does not involve tapping upfront. Still, whether you tap upfront (which is how most people play, and makes more sense) or you declare whether or not you will take the -3 modification is the same effect but said differently.

3) A target untapped character may take a -3 modification so that he will not automatically tap following the strike sequence.

Normally a character that is the target of a strike is tapped after the strike is resolved. However, a character may choose to take a -3 modification to his prowess to avoid being tapped. If so, the character is not tapped after the strike is resolved (he may still be wounded).

But back to the original post. It seems pretty clear that Sable Shield only prevents wounding by success normal strikes and does not prevent tapping by successful detainment strikes.

Furthermore, I am against the proposed clarification, at least because it includes an incorrect assumption not based on the rules. Plus it is verbose. And it also adds further clarifications instead of just improving the CRF statements we already have.

But I do think that a clarification to the offending CRF statement would be helpful. I'll take a look at this again later.