This is in fact how it works. Can't really see what's 'scary' about it? If you don't like doing the math, simply don't use weapon/armor ranks. I feel combat would lose a good deal of color that way, but YGMV.
David Cake:
>So which edge you use
>doesn't depend on whether you are acting or resisting, except when
>the abilities you use are completely different.
It does so. ;-)
>Between two people,
>say, in close combat using the same ability for attack and defense,
>the edge used should depend on who wins.
No, it depends on who's the attacker and who's the defender in any particular exchange.
Ian Cooper:
>If attacker implies actor and defender opponent the edge varies. i.e.
>it is not sum of my weapona nd armor ranks vs. sum of your weapon and
>armor ranks but weapon vs armor.
Exactly right. I think what might be confusing to some is that in the rule you quote, right after the sentence about how ranks aren't really edges in themselves, they're just used to calculate edges/handicaps, comes a sentence talking about edges again as if that was what the whole discussion was about. It muddies the waters slightly.
>the opponent defensive edge of say +9(R3 armor +6 enhancement)against
>the attacker/actor's +5 offensive edges (R3 weapon +2 enhancement)
>then attacker/actor would attack at a handicap of -3.
-4, but otherwise correct.
>However again it might be more realistic
>to suggest that defense augmentations reduce your chances.
Maybe, but HW generally seems very restrictive about using abilities to directly give your opponents penalties. If you want to reduce their AP, you beat 'em up. If you want to reduce their abilities, you beat 'em up 'til they bleed...
Guy Hoyle:
>How would parrying be handled, then?
Simple. It isn't. ;-)
>That was a crucial part of RQ
>combat.
Yeah, but HW combat is somewhat less rigid than RQ. The defender's roll can be interpreted as a parry, a dodge, an attempt to trip the opponent up, or any kind of defensive move you can think of, short of a riposte.
Powered by hypermail