The status effects that provide a figure with the Bleed, Burn, Daze, Frost, Stun and Web tokens, and even Knockback even though that doesn't have a token usually say something along the lines off "If received attack inflicts at least 1 damage (before armor) place said token on the figure."

Now, we've assumed that the damage before armor part means that the figure receives these tokens (or the Knockback) even if it doesn't actually take any wounds due to it's armor, and in almost all cases it makes sense. I can imagine someone who gets an attack to be stunned or dazed or webbed or knocked back by it, however, in the case of Bleed it doesn't make any sense that a character suddenly starts bleeding after an attack that doesn't even actually hurt him.

I haven't played Descent a whole lot, on and off some casual games at a friend's place and part of the RtL campaign, but recently I've purchased my own copy with the expansions and am planning to run games more frequently with friends. So at the moment I'm inclined to rule an exception on Bleed, saying that you only get a bleed token if part of the damage actually passes through your armor, which seems more logical to me. Any thoughts on this by some of the more experienced players here?

If you want to house-rule it, I'm not sure it would make a huge difference in the game. How often does that specific scenario actually come up?

If you just want a thematic justification, you could simply imagine the attack didn't cause any immediate apparent damage, but when the weapon bounced off the armor it did cause some internal bleeding. (I'm sure there are much better thematic explanations; that's simply one very basic idea that could be explained in a single sentence.)

Kerrigan said:

I highlighted the part where you went wrong. Descent is not intended to be a 100% logical reality replication engine, and it falls apart horribly if you try to make it one. I don't think a Bleed house rule would cause catastrophic collapse, but coming at the game with an eye for realism will eventually make you give up on playing it or wander off into the shadows gibbering about strange things men should not know.

James McMurray said:

+1 to James.
I'd like to add though, that the point of bleed is to give something that can still hurt high armour heroes. If you houserule it so it only works if you got through the armour anyway, you are kind of nullifying the purpose...

Everything Corbon has said here is correct. In terms of design space, the fact the bleed works irrespective of armor is the basis of the entire ability. Therefore, house-ruling this would remove a rare but crucial option for both players. In addition to its use for the Overlord, it's often a good idea for the heroes to keep a Bleed weapon around in case they encounter a monster that is difficult to damage otherwise (for example, the Gemstone Dragon).

-pw

Corbon said:

You've made me realize now that Bleed is an ability intended to be able to bypass armor, which is something I hadn't given consideration too. So in light of this I'll stick to the official rules, thanks for the much appreciated input.

It works both ways too. As Overlord, I'm sometimes facing heroes with 7+ armor. Having Bleed is a good way to get past that armor. Ah Ferox, how I love thee...

-shnar

My favorite use of bleed is to get a hero down to 1 hp and a bleed token. Then they start their turn, bleed for 1 point, and die, ending their turn before they've had a chance to do anything.

Unless they have Sharr the Brightwing with them... *glare*