Richard Develyn:
> Now I believe (and someone *please* correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> opponent does not have to use in offence the ability he used in defence. If
> actor and opponent have vastly different goals (i.e. fighter vs
> sleep-inducing-healer) then the two exchanges are going to be very
> different.
That's all correct, and true.
> My first problem is this: the first actor determines the exchange which is
> used to generate those initial APs. This makes a huge difference to the
> outcome of the encounter. Being first actor is very important and there are
> no rules to help with this at all.
>
> p.137 states this nice and explicitely
>
> "...if you are the actor in a first exchange of a contest, it is always
> clever to take an action which forces your opponent to respond using one of
> his lesser abilities. That way, his overall AP total will be lower for the
> rest of the contest."
My apologies, David, I missed this on my quick re-skim as I posted earlier. You're right that the rules say this -- and I'm still right that it's a dumb idea, of the first rank... Pretty much a case of writing a buggy rule, and then rubbing salt into the wounds by adding an extra passage encouraging players to rejoice at it and exploit it ruthlessly, regardless of narrative game-world logic. (Which reminds me of the Community Participation rules, curiously...)
> This feels totally ridiculous to me.
You're right. It's a shame no-one realised this in advance of publication-- hey, wait a minute!
> The second problem comes because there appears to be an implicit assumption
> that your objective in an encounter is entirely described by the initial
> ability used in that encounter.
It's the same problem, really, and so I still agree with you. ;-)
Here's how I suggest you fix it:
And the whole of the Hero Wars Law shall be, if it feels good, do it.
Slán,
Alex.
[*] Not a promise or guarantee.
Powered by hypermail