Re: Digest Number 158

From: t.s.baguley_at_...
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:38:41 +0100


> From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
> Me too.
> I find the idea that if the attacker loses in an exchange
>(which happens very often), they stumble etc and this has nothing to
>do with the opponents weapons, very odd. Would lead to descriptions
>with a large number of very clumsy sounding warriors. I prefer to
>leave stumbling and other 'shoot self in foot' behaviours to Fumbles.

It needn't be so. In most combats the easiest defence is to step back. Moving backwards can leave you off balance and makes it tricky to attack back. Other losses of APs could reflect a desparate parry that follows through too fully (leaving you more open for another attack), being caught at the wrong distance and so on. (Mind you stumbling is very common if you move backwards or sideways quickly on uneven ground - and I don't think it would represent a fumble in those cases). It takes amazing skill levels to keep on balance in a fencing bout. When fencing against an opponent of similar ability a common tactic is to force your opponent backwards, off balance and so on.

Thom

Powered by hypermail