And that is how it works out in our games. Although a character might have a larger pool of APs because of followers, the descriptions of actions are rarely in terms of the follower's actions. We often describe outcomes in terms of followers, however. For example, if the AP loss is as much as the APs provided by one of the followers, we describe a follower as having been wounded/knocked out of the fight.
...
> It also offers a many-to-one penalty of -3
> for each defence after the first, with no impact on the attack of the
> One onto one of the Many. These seem implausible even in a heroic game,
I don't think so. Imagine the One's descrtiption of his action is 'I ignore the others and concentrate my attack on one of them'. That tends to be the implied default when an attack is described in our group. e.g. 'I hack at his [note the singular] neck, trying to chop his head off!' If a player said 'I lay into the shield wall, cutting left and right, trying to cut them all down.' we would probably agree that the action was risky and therefore requires a high AP bid.
...
> This is really a little too detailed for the rather free flowing Hero
> Wars rules, but if something is going horribly wrong in what the rules
> say and what feels right to happen, then pulling out the above rules
> might help.
I don't think we've had any major problems with the HW rules for followers in extended contests. The only related problem was that the TN's of followers, being linked to the bast ability of their leader, advanced too rapidly. I believe this is fixed in HQ.
In particular, the rules do not distract from what really matters: evocative descriptions of what the player characters are doing.
Powered by hypermail