Elric - Rune of Reflection Hypothetical

[DamonJynx]

Borric and Kalas are prepared for battle. Both have vocalised Runes of Reflection on themselves, Borric at a 4 MP investment, Kalas at 2 MP. Each is unaware of the others preparations.

Borric, as fate would have it, wins initiative and acts first. He attacks Kalas and is successful. Kalas wearing a chainmail shirt and coif relies on his armour and magic for protection and so does not parry.

Kalas' Rune of Reflection triggers, what happens next?

• 1. Is Borric considered unaware of the incoming attack (his reflected attack on Kalas) and so his Rune does NOT trigger and the attack is resolved normally against Borric?
  2. Is he considered aware and his Rune DOES trigger (this would also be the case for subsequent attacks on Kalas), but as he is the attacker, his Rune is nullified for this round (he attacks himself until his Rune is expended) and the attack is resolved normally against Borric?
  3. The attack 'bounces' between Borric and Kalas until one of them runs out of Reflections, in this case Kalas, and the attack is resolved normally against Kalas and Borric is left with 2 reflections this round?

Any thoughts as to which or what combination of the above would be appropriate? I'm thinking 1 & 2 as the most logical and within the RAW, but frankly it's making my head hurt.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Interesting question. The rules say that:

The effects of a rune cannot be dismissed. Only in some
circumstances can a rune be countered by a rune of opposite
power and only then if it equals or exceeds the number of
Magic Points invested in it.

One possible interpretation is that if the caster is aware of the attack, then the runes are opposed. However things happen fast in the combat and it's possible that attacker isn't prepared for such attack and it surprises the attacker, maybe attacker should roll persistence roll to see if he can prepare to the surprise reflection.

 

[Matt_H]

Ah this rune again! Causes so much debate. (as you already know Damon (see link below))

I would go with option 1 Damon. Keep it that way as multiple reflected attacks is just silly and this isn't a rune that can oppose another rune.
The players themselves should see sense and not attack again, if they don't then they deserve the reflected attack. Find another tactic or suck up the damage.
How far do you go? do you allow them to parry or evade what was essentially their own attack? I say no. One attack, one reflection (with NO modifiers or chance to avoid).

In the novels this rune was used once by an eastern sorcerer to reflect arrows and not melee attacks. Perhaps it should be limited to ranged attacks, but in the end we removed it from our campaign completely.

Previous 'Reflection' Thread

 

[DamonJynx]

@Olas,

The runes wouldn't actually oppose each other, they would just reflect attacks until one of them ran out of oomph if I decided to rule it that way.

@Matt_H

Yeah, I'm aware of the difficulties this rune can pose - which is why I posted my 'hypothetical'. I thought it would make an interesting question.

It may be better to have the opponent have a Rune of Leeching inscribed on his melee weapon. That way he negates the reflection somewhat and gains it's benefit when he parries with his weapon - won't the PC's be surprised when he attacks and it get's through! Or better yet, give him both!

One of my players generally vocalise reflection at 4MP prior to battle, it'll be interesting to see what his reaction is when it only reflects 2 attacks (I won't have the Rune of Leeching at 4 MP, probably 2 MP - we used to play with a GM who would ALWAYS use templates or whatever to throw opponents at us that could negate our abilities and I won't do that).

 

[Olaus Petrus]

How far do you go? do you allow them to parry or evade what was essentially their own attack? I say no. One attack, one reflection (with NO modifiers or chance to avoid).

In the novels this rune was used once by an eastern sorcerer to reflect arrows and not melee attacks. Perhaps it should be limited to ranged attacks, but in the end we removed it from our campaign completely.

With melee weapons it's easier to justify that it's a complete surprise, but if arrow flies 150 meters and then turns back it's possible to see that and be aware of the attack.

@Olas,

The runes wouldn't actually oppose each other, they would just reflect attacks until one of them ran out of oomph if I decided to rule it that way.

The arrow (or other weapon) is affected by the powers of the two runes and effects are exactly opposite. In that case my ruling would be that the rune with stronger magnitude wins. If runes are of equal power I might even make the arrow stop in mid air and fall down or alternatively reflections of same strength neutralize effects of each other and arrow continues to it's original target. Ping-ponging occurs only if you interpret that it's a new attack when arrow is reflected, while it could also be considered as a single attack (made with single CA) which is directed to the target which has the weakest magical defense (although it still could look like ping-ponging or arrow stops in mid air, stays there for a moment and then goes to the direction of the weakest defense.)

The whole thing is open to interpretation and I'm not saying that any of my thoughts are correct, but these are just some ideas.

 

[DamonJynx]

...a single attack (made with single CA)...

I think that is the crux of the matter. It is a single attack made with a single CA, therefore can only be subject to one instance of reflection. Borric attacks Kalas whose Rune triggers and Borric hits himself - Borric is struck by the Reflection, there is no attack roll made by Kalas against Borric (or Borric against Borric for that matter), therefore, the Reflection is not a ' physical attack' it is a magical effect that uses the attackers own weapon(s) against him, his Reflection Rune doesn't trigger - regardless of whether he is aware of it or not.

I think that's how I'll rule it when the situation arises. So long as I apply that logic consistently shouldn't pose a problem - even to the rules lawyers in my group.

Thanks for the input guys, it's been a big help.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

...a single attack (made with single CA)...

I think that is the crux of the matter. It is a single attack made with a single CA, therefore can only be subject to one instance of reflection. Borric attacks Kalas whose Rune triggers and Borric hits himself - Borric is struck by the Reflection, there is no attack roll made by Kalas against Borric (or Borric against Borric for that matter), therefore, the Reflection is not a ' physical attack' it is a magical effect that uses the attackers own weapon(s) against him, his Reflection Rune doesn't trigger - regardless of whether he is aware of it or not.

I think that's how I'll rule it when the situation arises. So long as I apply that logic consistently shouldn't pose a problem - even to the rules lawyers in my group.

Thanks for the input guys, it's been a big help.

That makes sense and it's certainly fits better into the general atmosphere of the game than ping-ponging.