I'm still pretty confused

So I read through Armor Is Useless, but I'm still confused about a few thing.

Let's say in this world full of monsters, Armor Is Useless:

1. Alice deliberatelly doesn't wear armor because she know it does nothing against monsters' crushing attacks. Does this count as invoked or reconstructed?

2. Armors are not actually useless, they're actually quite useful against normal human's weapons, and are only useless against monster. Does this count as downplayed or averted?

3. Armors doesn't work against monsters only because monsters can tear metal apart like paper. Does this count as justified or averted?

Edited by Andermann on Feb 3rd 2019 at 4:59:30 AM

I would say:

1. Invoked and Exploited (as Alice knows the armor would be unhelpful, so she doesn't use it) 2. Downplayed, since armor isn't entirely useless but still is useless against monsters. 3. Justified- there's a reason why the armor doesn't work.

1 is neither invoked nor exploited. She doesn't set the trope up, so it's not invoked. She doesn't take advantage of the trope, but rather avoids the drawback. Exploiting it would be something like using fast attacks that shouldn't go through armour but do thanks to the trope. Or in other words, by not using armour, her advantage isn't any more or less than it would be if the trope were not in effect. Exploiting a trope means using the trope to gain an advantage you wouldn't have without the trope. It's probably closer to defying the trope, but I'm not sure I'd put it there either, since it's just about not having it matter at all.

2 sounds like averted, depending on why monsters can ignore armour. Could be a case of Armour Piercing Attack. If there's no such justification, it's downplayed.

3 is both Armor Is Useless and Armour Piercing Attack. Unless it works in other situations, in which case see 2.

Armor Is Useless is specifically when a character uses bulky armor that provides no notable protection.

If a character doesn't wear armor because it is explicitly (ie said in dialogue or established visually) useless that would be defied via Conversational Troping. If they simply don't go into battle without armor that isn't the trope at all, although may fall under something like Helmets Are Hardly Heroic because the lack of armor for the situation is suspicious. If it is stated that the armor they are wearing is/was compromised due to the weapons being faced (ie rated for shrapnel or small arms, not direct strikes), that would be a justification.

1. could be an exploited example if knowing that armor wouldn't increase your chances of survival, you decide not to wear any in order to increase flexibility.

That would still be defied because the trope is not being used. Exploited would be more like feigning your injury being greater than it is so that your opponent lets down their guard.

• Straight: A basic bullet goes right through the thickest part of the armor.
• Subverted: A person gets shot and goes down as though they are hurt, but get up and are okay (which is realistic).
  • Double Subverted: They are shot and appear hurt, but get up and seem okay. Later it's revealed they have some bruising or legitimate breaches of the armor (also realistic).
• Averted: After a fight, scratches and damage can be seen but no punctures. It's not called attention to and not notable otherwise.
• Exaggerated: Armor is functionally worthless in every respect, limits mobility and eyesight while also top heavy making them fall over under any circumstances.
• Downplayed: Armor is regularly compromised but character is still able to keep going.
• Played For Laughs: Kid throws a handful of gravel and wipes out a line of armored mooks.
• Played For Drama: Armor is normally impenetrable but enemy uses a new armor piercing weapon to catch them by surprise.
• Deconstructed: Higher ups use cheap products with a We Have Reserves mentality.
• Reconstructed: Armor does provide superficial protection while also bolstering soldier confidence and morale.