🛡️ SHIELD 🛡️ (rune spell) errata?

[icebrand]

"If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible."

Like, dude, if cast on a target already protected by Countermagic either the shield can't get past it or it knocks Countermagic down (or both).

I'm angry and confused at this, what happened here??? 

Let's see Countermagic so i don't make a fool of myself...

"This defensive spell protects the target it is cast upon against any other incoming spell, including those such as Detection, 
Protection, and even Healing spells."

And as we all know, shield's magic defenses are "equivalent to the spirit magic spell"

Ideas? I was arguing about this with a friend yesterday. He said some nonsense about spell layers (straight out of Sandy's munchkin rules lol). Is this still a thing?

[Dragon]

9 minutes ago, icebrand said:

"If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible."

Like, dude, if cast on a target already protected by Countermagic either the shield can't get past it or it knocks Countermagic down (or both).

I'm angry and confused at this, what happened here??? 

Let's see Countermagic so i don't make a fool of myself...

"This defensive spell protects the target it is cast upon against any other incoming spell, including those such as Detection, 
Protection, and even Healing spells."

And as we all know, shield's magic defenses are "equivalent to the spirit magic spell"

Ideas? I was arguing about this with a friend yesterday. He said some nonsense about spell layers (straight out of Sandy's munchkin rules lol). Is this still a thing?

I believe the main scenario where the quote applies is when the CASTER already had Countermagic 3 and cast Shield 2. Then it is not an 'incoming' spell. The two stack, and the caster/target now has 7 total levels of Countermagic. If a spell with 9+ magic points is incoming, the spell gets through. If a spell with 6+ magic points is incoming, the Countermagic drops. 

As for the 'would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible' part: A Dispel Magic 3+ would take down the Countermagic. A Dispel Magic 4, which is sufficient to take down either, would take down the Countermagic first. Meaning the next Dispel Magic 4 would take down the Shield.

[icebrand]

10 minutes ago, Dragon said:

I believe the main scenario where the quote applies is when the CASTER already had Countermagic 3 and cast Shield 2. Then it is not an 'incoming' spell. The two stack, and the caster/target now has 7 total levels of Countermagic. If a spell with 9+ magic points is incoming, the spell gets through. If a spell with 6+ magic points is incoming, the Countermagic drops. 

As for the 'would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible' part: A Dispel Magic 3+ would take down the Countermagic. A Dispel Magic 4, which is sufficient to take down either, would take down the Countermagic first. Meaning the next Dispel Magic 4 would take down the Shield.

How is it not an incoming spell? Is there even a definition for incoming spell? What page is this stuff in?

Why was this changed? This is a monumental buff to shield, which already is twice as good as most other rune spells 😐

Edited April 12, 2022 by icebrand

[AndreJarosch]

4 minutes ago, icebrand said:

How is it not an incoming spell? Is there even a definition for incoming spell? What page is this stuff in?

Why was this changed? This is a monumental buff to shield, which already is twice as good as most other rune spells 😐

If i would punch you, it is an incoming hit. 
If you would punch yourself, i it not an incoming hit. 

If you would drive your car into mine, it is an incoming hit. 
If you would drive your car into a wall, it is not an incoming hit. 

Same with spells. 
 

[Dragon]

3 minutes ago, icebrand said:

How is it not an incoming spell? Is there even a definition for incoming spell? What page is this stuff in?

Sometimes sentences have normal and implicit meaning rather than having to be explicitly defined in every situation of the Rules.

Countermagic, Absorption, Reflection all use the phrase 'incoming spells' Absorption page 317 specifically states 'enemy spells'. Which seems a little odd, when Countermagic specifically states it even absorbs Healing - which in almost all situations will be cast by friends and allies. Reflection does not specify 'enemy spells', but all spells that fail to overcome the POW of the protected being. Which clearly means that self cast Healing, or self-cast anything, would not be Reflected. Because self cast never needs to overcome your own POW.

Note in Armor page 216, the use of incoming as well. 'Shield Statistics' on page 217 also mention incoming attacks. Your medium shield doesn't protect your opponent from your sword. The use of incoming is consistent that it is something coming from outside the target and coming at the target.

[icebrand]

23 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

If i would punch you, it is an incoming hit. 
If you would punch yourself, i it not an incoming hit. 

If you would drive your car into mine, it is an incoming hit. 
If you would drive your car into a wall, it is not an incoming hit. 

Same with spells. 
 

I actually used the same example the other way around. If shield still protects you as you jump off a building, it still "protects" you from whatever you cast.

Allowing a shielded character to just carry whatever at no extra cost seems horribly broken. Again, shield *already* is twice as good as most other stuff...

17 minutes ago, Dragon said:

Sometimes sentences have normal and implicit meaning rather than having to be explicitly defined in every situation of the Rules.

Countermagic, Absorption, Reflection all use the phrase 'incoming spells' Absorption page 317 specifically states 'enemy spells'. Which seems a little odd, when Countermagic specifically states it even absorbs Healing - which in almost all situations will be cast by friends and allies. Reflection does not specify 'enemy spells', but all spells that fail to overcome the POW of the protected being. Which clearly means that self cast Healing, or self-cast anything, would not be Reflected. Because self cast never needs to overcome your own POW.

Note in Armor page 216, the use of incoming as well. 'Shield Statistics' on page 217 also mention incoming attacks. Your medium shield doesn't protect your opponent from your sword. The use of incoming is consistent that it is something coming from outside the target and coming at the target.

Your medium shield doesn't protect your enemy from your sword, but your armor sure as hell protects you from your fumble.

I can't accept (i shouldn't) an implicit statement that has huge game-wide implications. Maybe I've been playing wrong since forever and defensive spells are even better than i think.

(In RQ3 we did use to play like this, ie being able to cast on you with shield up... But it was a murderhobo/munchkin campaign)

 

[Dragon]

3 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Your medium shield doesn't protect your enemy from your sword, but your armor sure as hell protects you from your fumble.

I can't accept (i shouldn't) an implicit statement that has huge game-wide implications. Maybe I've been playing wrong since forever and defensive spells are even better than i think.

(In RQ3 we did use to play like this, ie being able to cast on you with shield up... But it was a murderhobo/munchkin campaign)

Your fumble is still your sword incoming to your greaves. Armor doesn't protect you from ahem, peeing yourself because you saw Harrek or the Crimson Bat. That is already inside your armor. Just like casting a spell on yourself is inside your Countermagic.

In RQ2 or RQ3 I am pretty certain allowed Healing to ignore all types of countermagic/reflect/absorb. Healing also never required a resistance roll in those versions. Now in RQG if you are unaware of a Heal spell, you resist it. Note that you are always aware of your own Heal or your ally's Heal.

Which means RQG is more consistent with a meta-concept of how magic works.

Hence if you go unconscious because your leg was maimed, you resist the incoming Heal 6 or Heal Body. Because you did not voluntarily and knowingly accept the spell (Page 244 Core Rules). It will also knock down your Countermagic 4. But the loss of your Countermagic is likely acceptable to the alternative of remaining maimed.

Anyway, you can disagree with our (Andre and my) interpretation of the meaning of 'incoming'. But then the original quote "If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible." makes no sense ever. Hence, I really think our interpretation makes it all fit together. YGMV.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

"If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible."

Like, dude, if cast on a target already protected by Countermagic either the shield can't get past it or it knocks Countermagic down (or both).

I'm angry and confused at this, what happened here???

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

Why was this changed? This is a monumental buff to shield, which already is twice as good as most other rune spells 😐

The exact same wording was in RQ3. Nothing has changed. You could say it only stacks if the caster is casting it on themselves and therefore not "incoming" - I cast Countermagic 2, then Shield 2. I now have Countermagic 6, but the spirit spell can be dispelled.

RQ2 said "If Shield and Countermagic are stacked together", so it was clearly possible to cast one whilst the other was up back then as well.

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

Maybe I've been playing wrong since forever...

Sounds like it!

Edited April 12, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[icebrand]

27 minutes ago, Dragon said:

Your fumble is still your sword incoming to your greaves. Armor doesn't protect you from ahem, peeing yourself because you saw Harrek or the Crimson Bat. That is already inside your armor. Just like casting a spell on yourself is inside your Countermagic.

In RQ2 or RQ3 I am pretty certain allowed Healing to ignore all types of countermagic/reflect/absorb. Healing also never required a resistance roll in those versions. Now in RQG if you are unaware of a Heal spell, you resist it. Note that you are always aware of your own Heal or your ally's Heal.

Which means RQG is more consistent with a meta-concept of how magic works.

Hence if you go unconscious because your leg was maimed, you resist the incoming Heal 6 or Heal Body. Because you did not voluntarily and knowingly accept the spell (Page 244 Core Rules). It will also knock down your Countermagic 4. But the loss of your Countermagic is likely acceptable to the alternative of remaining maimed.

Anyway, you can disagree with our (Andre and my) interpretation of the meaning of 'incoming'. But then the original quote "If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible." makes no sense ever. Hence, I really think our interpretation makes it all fit together. YGMV.

From RQ2 (CE)

Countermagic is a defensive spell which will attempt to stop any other spell incoming against the protected person or 
object. However, it will not interfere with previously enchanted objects, such as a sword with Bladesharp on it. It may be used to shield the caster or another character or object of his choice.

From RQG 

This defensive spell protects the target it is cast upon against any other incoming spell, including those such as Detection, Protection, and even Healing 
spells. However, it does not interfere 
with previously enchanted objects, such as a sword with Bladesharp on it. It 
does not work against spirits, but may work against spells 
cast by those spirits.

----

By incoming i interpret "not already cast". Don't you think it's really weird that it explicits the previously cast spells aren't affected, and that healing etc are affected, but says nothing about the caster being able to cast on themselves unhindered?

Btw, you can totally resist healing on RQ2, check under "did the spell work?" Pg33 on RQCE

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

Sometimes sentences have normal and implicit meaning rather than having to be explicitly defined in every situation of the Rules.

Countermagic, Absorption, Reflection all use the phrase 'incoming spells' Absorption page 317 specifically states 'enemy spells'. Which seems a little odd, when Countermagic specifically states it even absorbs Healing -

Absorption is clearly different to Countermagic.

Edited April 12, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[PhilHibbs]

I find this quibbling over precise wording to be incredibly tedious. Just get on with the game. RQ is a vague approximation to what is really happening in Glorantha - the game's magic rules are not identical to the world's. If they were, it would be incomprehensible and unplayable. We don't calculate momentum and leverage and shear forces and wind resistance when we roll to hit and do damage. Same with magic, embrace the mystery.

[icebrand]

9 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Absorption is clearly different to Countermagic.

Absorption: shield without protection but you get the MP of the spell.

At least that's how I interpret it!

[Dragon]

4 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Btw, you can totally resist healing on RQ2, check under "did the spell work?" Pg33 on RQCE

I don't have RQCE. I have RQ2. Page 33 "Some spells almost always works. Spells which a character casts upon himself, or spells cast on inanimate objects, or any healing spells, do not need to overcome resistance. Also unconscious characters cannot resist a spell of any sort. However, a roll of 96-00 means the spell will fail." (emphasis added)

So, the way I played it was RAW that I recalled. Having the original meant I never bought RQCE. So any change in that rule I would be unaware of and my 'pretty certain' stands.

Perhaps you should quote what page 33 of RQCE states that is different than the original. Then I could respond to that part.

13 minutes ago, icebrand said:

...other spell incoming against...

The language clearly stated 'against'. Not for. Not helpful. Against. 

That changed in RQG when they answered the question of how did spells differentiate between good incoming spells and bad incoming spells (the meta-concept). The authors changed how that worked to be consistent. And changed the wording to 'any other incoming spell', and changed unconscious characters to always resisting.

QED.

[icebrand]

39 minutes ago, Dragon said:

I don't have RQCE. I have RQ2. Page 33 "Some spells almost always works. Spells which a character casts upon himself, or spells cast on inanimate objects, or any healing spells, do not need to overcome resistance. Also unconscious characters cannot resist a spell of any sort. However, a roll of 96-00 means the spell will fail." (emphasis added)

So, the way I played it was RAW that I recalled. Having the original meant I never bought RQCE. So any change in that rule I would be unaware of and my 'pretty certain' stands.

Perhaps you should quote what page 33 of RQCE states that is different than the original. Then I could respond to that part.

The language clearly stated 'against'. Not for. Not helpful. Against. 

That changed in RQG when they answered the question of how did spells differentiate between good incoming spells and bad incoming spells (the meta-concept). The authors changed how that worked to be consistent. And changed the wording to 'any other incoming spell', and changed unconscious characters to always resisting.

QED.

Yeah I'm an idiot that can't read, you don't get to resist healing, the example is with strength.

In any case, shield works before resistance. I guess I may be wrong and shield doesn't work against your own spells, but i find it kinda unbalanced.

Edit: what if "incoming" is there in contrast to "outgoing"?

Edited April 12, 2022 by icebrand

[soltakss]

Sensible people cast it in this order: Shield, then Countermagic, as the Countermagic stacks with the Countermagic in the Shield spell.

Fools cast it in this order: Countermagic, then Shield, as the Shield spell knocks down the Countermagic.

I suppose you could say that this is your spell, so does not affect the Countermagic, so they still are both in effect. I wouldn't, personally.

[PhilHibbs]

19 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Sensible people cast it in this order: Shield, then Countermagic, as the Countermagic stacks with the Countermagic in the Shield spell.

Fools cast it in this order: Countermagic, then Shield, as the Shield spell knocks down the Countermagic.

The rules specifically say that this is not the case.

[Shiningbrow]

52 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Sensible people cast it in this order: Shield, then Countermagic, as the Countermagic stacks with the Countermagic in the Shield spell.

Fools cast it in this order: Countermagic, then Shield, as the Shield spell knocks down the Countermagic.

I suppose you could say that this is your spell, so does not affect the Countermagic, so they still are both in effect. I wouldn't, personally.

If the main principle is MGF - then does it really matter?

Why should a player-constraining rule be supposed to affect character?

Are there many situations where this combination becomes important?

[Scotty]

19 hours ago, icebrand said:

"If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible."

Like, dude, if cast on a target already protected by Countermagic either the shield can't get past it or it knocks Countermagic down (or both).

If an adventurer is protected by Shield 2 and Countermagic 1 and is hit by a Disruption (1 pt) - the  Countermagic and Disruption both disappear. The Shield remains.

If an adventurer is protected by Shield 2 and Countermagic 1 and is hit by a Disruption (1 pt) boosted with 2 magic points - the Countermagic disappears and the Disruption hits the Shield. The shield is effectively Countermagic 4, the Disruption is one point below the Countermagic, so disappears. The Shield does not dissipate.

If an adventurer is protected by Shield 2 and Countermagic 1 and is hit by a Disruption (1 pt) boosted with 5 magic points - the Countermagic disappears and the Disruption hits the Shield. The shield is effectively Countermagic 4, the Disruption is two points higher the Countermagic, so strikes the target. The Shield does not dissipate.

Note that Countermagic and Shield don't stack, they are cumulative.

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

5 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Note that Countermagic and Shield don't stack, they are cumulative.

Oh thanks to remind it. I forgot it (or misunderstood)

[Shiningbrow]

7 minutes ago, Scotty said:

If an adventurer is protected by Shield 2 and Countermagic 1 and is hit by a Disruption (1 pt) - the  Countermagic and Disruption both disappear. The Shield remains.

If an adventurer is protected by Shield 2 and Countermagic 1 and is hit by a Disruption (1 pt) boosted with 2 magic points - the Countermagic disappears and the Disruption hits the Shield. The shield is effectively Countermagic 4, the Disruption is one point below the Countermagic, so disappears. The Shield does not dissipate.

If an adventurer is protected by Shield 2 and Countermagic 1 and is hit by a Disruption (1 pt) boosted with 5 magic points - the Countermagic disappears and the Disruption hits the Shield. The shield is effectively Countermagic 4, the Disruption is two points higher the Countermagic, so strikes the target. The Shield does not dissipate.

Note that Countermagic and Shield don't stack, they are cumulative.

 

This does not make any sense to me! Especially when we do the same thing with Protection.

If the Countermagic isn't stacking, then it's an either/or situation - either the CM is stronger than the Shield, or it isn't. If it is, then the CM effect of the Shield is irrelevant. If the Shield's CM effect is stronger, then there's no point in casting CM (as in your examples above).

Anyone with Shield 2 or higher is simply wasting time and MPs by casting a CM (unless they've got quite a powerful POW Enhancing crystal).

OTOH, if one is hit by a weapon, the damage will be reduced because of both the Protection and the Shield. Prot 2 + Shield 1 = 4 points of damage reduction.

[Scotty]

10 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

This does not make any sense to me! Especially when we do the same thing with Protection.

See the Q&A on Shield.

10 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

If the Countermagic isn't stacking, then it's an either/or situation - either the CM is stronger than the Shield, or it isn't. If it is, then the CM effect of the Shield is irrelevant. If the Shield's CM effect is stronger, then there's no point in casting CM (as in your examples above).

Anyone with Shield 2 or higher is simply wasting time and MPs by casting a CM (unless they've got quite a powerful POW Enhancing crystal).

Yes. In many cases there won't be any point in casting countermagic. The point is that Shield and Countermagic don't stack.

10 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

OTOH, if one is hit by a weapon, the damage will be reduced because of both the Protection and the Shield. Prot 2 + Shield 1 = 4 points of damage reduction.

Yes. The damage mechanic is different. In theory you subtract the the Shield Protection first then the Protection spell protection, but in practice combining the two works the same.

[Shiningbrow]

2 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Yes. In many cases there won't be any point in casting countermagic. The point is that Shield and Countermagic don't stack.

Houserule!

[Scotty]

31 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Houserule!

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I find this quibbling over precise wording to be incredibly tedious. Just get on with the game.

In my games to avoid any issues arising, Shield & Countermagic are incompatible. I find dropping any complexity makes the game run faster and promotes MGF.

[icebrand]

2 minutes ago, Scotty said:

In my games to avoid any issues arising, Shield & Countermagic are incompatible. I find dropping any complexity makes the game run faster and promotes MGF.

Ok, so the target of countermagic can cast spells on himself without any issue, since these are "outgoing" not "incoming" spells.

And shield and countermagic don't stack but are not incompatible. 

Did i get it right?

[Scotty]

6 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Ok, so the target of countermagic can cast spells on himself without any issue, since these are "outgoing" not "incoming" spells.

An adventurer can always cast magic on themself. Likewise they do not need to resist spells cast by themself on themself, they don't have to resist spells cast by others if they don't want to (Healing for example). GMs and players are welcome as usual to make the game more complex for themselves, but I really advise against it per MGF.

6 minutes ago, icebrand said:

And shield and countermagic don't stack but are not incompatible.

Yes.