Conflict and Vs. tests clarification please

Here’s the scenario:

The player’s archer character, Drax, has an Attack action scripted, as does his Goblin opponent. Drax is using a bow, making it a Vs. test. Both Drax and Goblin roll 4 successes. The test is a tie. Goblin is using a battle axe and applies the +1s weapon bonus to break the tied roll. However, Drax has Might 3 and Goblin Might 2, so he also adds +1s for Might. Both Drax and the Goblin make armor tests, each succeeding and reducing their opponents success -1s, keeping the test at a tie. Time for a tie-breaker?

Is that the correct way to resolve the test and bonuses? You roll for the test and apply all bonuses and penalties, and then see who succeeds or if it is a tie.

or, is it done this way:

  1. 4s vs. 4s tie
  2. Apply weapon bonus +1s Goblin for his axe. Goblin breaks the tie in his favor.

p. 72 continued
Using Weapons

  • Add +1s or +2s if the roll is successful or tied, but not if
  1. Because Goblin succeeds on his test, Drax rolls for his armor to reduce the damage and succeeds, reducing Goblins successes -1s. This brings the MoS to zero.

  2. Drax’s Might bonus does not apply because his test was not a tie or success

p. 75 Might
The Greater the Order, the More You Hurt
In addition to determining what you can and can’t kill, your
Might grants a substantial bonus: +1s per level of order
greater than your opponent for all successful or tied actions
in kill, capture, and drive off conflicts.

  1. The Turn is over, Drax takes no damage. Onto Turn 2.

In this interpretation, you roll the test. Determine success or tie. Weapon bonus can be used to break a tie since it is a tool for the Conflict (missing page reference). Might is applied IF the side with higher might succeeds or the test remains a tie, whereby it could break the tie in the Mightier’s favor. Armor roll is made by the failing side, or by both sides if the test is still a tie (assuming both sides have armor).

In essence, are tests/rolls different from actions? The book says Might and Armor applies to “actions” (Attack, Defend, Feint, Maneuver) and weapons apply to “rolls” (tests). However, p. 8 says,

The “+s” notation indicates that a number of bonus successes
are applied to successful or tied rolls—never to failed rolls.
“+1s” means that if you’ve passed or tied the test, add
another success to your total.

This makes sense to me for your average test, but in the Conflicts chapter Might has it’s own specific section (shown above) which says it applies to “actions” not rolls. Are the terms “action” and “roll” used interchangeably here, because an Attack action is not the same thing as a Fighter roll.

My brain hurts. Thanks for the help.

The fact that the Might bonus applies to actions doesn’t change the definition of +1s, it only changes when it applies, specifically to the rolls associated with certain actions in certain conflict types. It’s still a +1s in terms of effect. The goblin’s weapon and Drax’s Might therefore have the same precedence. I had always assumed that armor only applied to successful actions to reduce damage taken, but yep I’m totally wrong about that, the rules specifically say -1s to tied or successful actions, so it also has the same precedence as weapons and Might. As far as I can tell your initial thought was correct: Roll => Add Might/Weapons and Subtract Armor => Tie Breaker.

Works for me. I was just curious if Might was a case where a specific rule beats a general rule. Roll then apply everything is easier to manage though. Thanks.

Also, that means that a -1s penalty granted by armor can be used to break a tie, correct? This is not stated anywhere in the book, as the section on breaking ties only mentions using gear to give +1s.

I never really thought about armor breaking ties, but why else would it say the -1s also applies to ties? What else could that mean? That means armor can help you deal damage, which is a little weird, but not that weird… the best offense is a good defense?

This is where my confusion started. I understand the fundamental rules, but with all the rules relating to gear, Might, weapons, etc. there is some language that is not completely clear to me. I guess it is easier to believe the writers meant to include -1s for gear as an option for tie-breakers… Maybe an errata then for the Advanced book?

Okay, I’m really seeing this clearly now. Thanks again.

Fighting armored is different from fighting unarmored. You can take risks that you wouldn’t otherwise. You trust your armor to help turn an incoming blow, so you can lean in on your own strike rather than pulling up on your attack to put energy into moving out of the way. That’s the thinking anyway.

That’s sort of what I was thinking, makes me think of the description of knife fighting in Dune with and without a (I forget what they called it in the book, but basically a personal force field)