Hmm. I think this is one of those "wrapping your head around the way HQ does things."
On July 19, 2007 05:40 pm, Ian wrote:
> Let's say the entire Hero Band is working on building a ship. There's
> two ways of doing this as an extended contest - the entire group
> gangs up on the single opponent (the ship) and probably whomps seven
> kinds of hell out of it because of the vast disparity in APs between
> four or five heroes and one middling-difficulty ship,
Why do the contest if the players are obviously going to succeed? If it is a bunch of players against a ship, presumably you are giving the process sufficient difficulty to make the outcome interesting.
> OR, you break
> the ship up into multiple opponents for each individual ship builder
> to take part in, which can create the odd situation of winning the
> battle, but losing the war when the HeroBand defeats the grouped
> opposition "winning" the conflict, which implies the boat was built
> successfully, but one of the group was defeated by the ship's hull,
> meaning you have a successfully built boat with big whoppin' holes in
> the hull making it *unsuccessful* as a boat.
I certainly wouldn't do it this way. I'd do it as an extended contest against the ship as a whole. Or against how fast they need the ship built. But assuming someone came in and defeated the hull at some point, then all that happened was that the person on the hull was defeated.
> This *may* be misreading the extended conflict rules, of course. I'll
> admit I'm not quite a rules guru yet. And speaking of rules, why the
> *heck* hasn't this thread been taken over to the HQ Rules list?
Done :)
Powered by hypermail