Wards and Walls

[blackstaff67]

When determining the damage to a Ward (say, a Strength 6 ward).  I throw a Strength 4 attack against it.  Do I gain additional shifts if I roll my attack well?  Assume I have a Discipline of 4 and I roll a flat "+0," do I add that to my attack for a total of eight ( shifts?  If so, then it seems Wards are pretty easily countered--at least by wizards.

[Mrmdubois]

Wards are often meant to repel an amount of power equal to or less than their own strength.  So a four shift attack against a six shift ward will probably bounce it right back at you and force you to dodge or take damage.  At least that's how I understand it, I could be way off base.

[Lamech]

When determining the damage to a Ward (say, a Strength 6 ward).  I throw a Strength 4 attack against it.  Do I gain additional shifts if I roll my attack well?  Assume I have a Discipline of 4 and I roll a flat "+0," do I add that to my attack for a total of eight ( shifts?  If so, then it seems Wards are pretty easily countered--at least by wizards.

How I understand it is that you look at the "targeting" roll to determine if it can penetrate the ward.

So if you target a strength 6 ward, and roll a 4 on your attack, the ward is unharmed and the attack bounces back at you. You then take a four shift attack with the same weapon value. (Roll well on your defense.) Oh and the best way to take down a ward is teamwork.

[Lavecki121]

I have to agree with Lamech. Its the same way as if you were attacking a person. You Roll a 6 but he rolls a 7 to dodge, you dont get to add your attack because you havent hit him yet. If the ward is a 6 and you roll a seven however, you would then add your attack, making it a 9 and blowing through the ward with 3 extra shifts. The best thing to do is maneuver first then try and break through.

[blackstaff67]

Allow me to clarify:  When I say a flat "+0" I mean no plusses or minuses to my targeting roll.  If I roll a "+3" on my dice, do I add that to my Discipline of "4" for a total of +7?  Or is the actual strength of the attack what matters and the targeting roll is moot?  If it's the latter, then Wards are mighty effective.  If the former, then Wards aren't all that hot.

That said, as a GM, I prefer the latter interpretation.  But I wanted to do it the right way.

[Tedronai]

It's the targetting roll that matters most, just as with attacks against characters.  The weapon rating of the attack only comes into play if the targetting roll is at least equal to the defence (of which wards are, by virtue of the block rules).

[Sanctaphrax]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that weapon ratings are meant to apply when you beat the ward's "defence roll".

I think the rules could be read either way...but it makes sense to have weapon ratings apply, so let's do that.

[Taran]

I was just reading up the rules on wards and it seems to imply that you can:

1. choose to attack a target on the other side of the ward (and the ward acts as a normal block lessening your attack).  In this case weapon damage would seem to apply to the target

2. Choose to add the extra shifts towards lessening the ward equal to the number of shifts over the block str.

YS: 276
If the attack surpasses the block strength
of the ward, then the ward is breached; apply
whatever shifts get through to the target just
like bypassing a block (page 210). Alternatively,
the attacker may apply those shifts directly
toward getting rid of the ward itself; each shift
will reduce the value of the ward by one until it’s
gone.

[blackstaff67]

Ah, then it's just a matter of tagging and invoking more aspects to buff up the ward.  Thanks.