>
> You can always use the Desperation Stake rules (HQ 70). This is the one that
> allows you to bid more AP than you currently have (up to your starting AP).
Of course. But that's more a "take him down with me" thing in my eyes. Mind you, I'm ignoring the use of hero points. If you NEED the comeback, you desperation stake, burn your hero points for a critical, and take the transfer, which gives you the surge of AP to be back in the fight. So it's all good.
(Of course, I can always do a personal rule tweak and say that the penalty for blowing a parting shot is allowing the loser a final action. <-- not really serious)
I've got another question. How do you handle parts of a group having not quite the same goals in an extended contest?
Example: The crazed priest is trying to talk the princess into sacrificing herself. The heroes come to stop him, and the priest sends his goons to stop them. So you have the priest arguing with the Princess, trying to convince her. When she goes to 0AP, she succumbs. The players are fighting to get there, maybe some will try to shout encouragement to the Princess to resist, etc.
I suppose I could do this as the Priest, with AP from his followers, making multiple attacks (no penalty for the followers), but the "attack" on the Princess is completely different from the attack on the heroes, so that doesn't seem to work. (Maybe I rule that the evil Priest can only focus on one thing at a time? So the heros fighting the goons don't get attacked unless the Priest leaves the Princess alone that round?)
I could assign the goons a leader of sorts, make them one horde and the Priest separate, but then it feels to me like it is nesting two extended contests in with each other, which the rules say I shouldn't do.
I guess the final answer is to always find some larger conflict that absorbs all the disparate actions going on together, but that doesn't always seem possible.
LC
Powered by hypermail