Re: Attack and Defense

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:51:06 +0800


>David Cake still disagrees with me:

        Too right. And unlikely to ever change my position, regardless of how particular words in the rules are interpreted.

> >the actor (one initiating your contest.
>
>Most of the time, yeah, but see Group Extended Contests, p.132: "During a
>round, every character in the contest gets the chance to participate in
>an exchange as an actor." The actor/attacker is the one initiating the
>_exchange_, not the one initiating the contest as a whole.

	Yes, definately.
	Essentially, it looks like a funny way of turning one 
exchange into two. Apple one side of the edge one time, and the other half the other time? This isn't RQ, its HW, and a single exchange does not necessarily represent a single attack.

        Now, personally I am all in favour of deciding what happens in an exchange (and ruling on areas like edges appropriately). Which means that sometimes, I might apply it the way Jonas describes if circumstances warrant it. But the default is that an exchange is an exchange, and the consequences of participating in an exchange and losing are the same no matter who initiated it.

> >If you are the one inflicting
>>the damage, you use the edges and flaws of your weapon vs their
>>armour, regardless of who initiated the combat.
>
>Yes, but not regardless of who is controlling the exchange.

        Regardless of who is controlling the exchange as well EXCEPT the person controlling the exchange gets to choose with ability they use, and the stake (and the choice of ability that they actor uses may determine what is appropriate to use in response).

        But once you have chosen to use your Fighting skill, and they have chosen to respond with theirs, it really matter very little who was the actor.

> >Whether it is the
>>edge of your armour or your weapon that comes into play depends on
>>how you succeed at the contest - not whether you are acting or not.
>
>Sorry, wrong.

        This has degenerated into a 'right,wrong' argument pretty quickly, which there is simply no point continueing in that vein. I think its unfair to Roderick to try to discern what he meant from how well he managed to implement particular terminology changes thrust upon him too.

        So I am really only interested in reasoning to support why one way or the other is better.

>Then again, I guess you _could_ run it this way. ;-) The rules _are_
>sufficiently vague for you to push your interpretation more or less
>consistently.

        What do you mean sufficiently vague? The concept of two people in an exchange having an equal edge that cancels hardly even makes sense otherwise (at least for group contests, where there is no guarantee that they will take on each other in subsequence exchanges).

>But what happens then is that characters with superior equipment and/or
>magic become pretty much unstoppable.

        No, what happens is that people with superior Fighting skills and fighting gear win Fights. Remember, an edge only takes effect if you win - significantly superiour ability is much nastier than a big edge. And you can always choose, in your turn as actor, to do something else, involving a completely different skill, and thus turn it into a different sort of contest entirely. Admittedly, if its already got to the stage where you are in a brutal HTH melee with them, that may be difficult, but thats life for you.

	Cheers
		David

Powered by hypermail