Re: More edges and ranks

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 22:34:59 +0200


On Fri, 07 Jul 2000, Jonas Schiött wrote:

> Henrix, possibly inspired by Mikael, makes the same point:

Actually I am perfectly able to make my own points ;-D

> >Yes, of course. But you seem adamant against allowing the opponent to make
> >any sort of offensive action whatsoever.
>
> Nonsense. In previous posts, I've listed numerous aggressive maneuvers
> the defender can execute, even your famous boot to the groin. I would
> also go along with for instance an elbow to the solar plexus or a shield
> bash to the helmet. The _only_ restriction I want to apply is not
> allowing the defender a use of his primary weapon that constitutes an
> attack (has the possibility to draw blood), and that's only to avoid
> arguments in play.

[And later:]
> There should be a consistent process to follow that allows play to flow
> smoothly, without constant interruptions to debate the rules.

Why argue? Do you not have a GM (sorry Narrator)? ;-)

But seriously, a boot to the groin is a rank 0 weapon, a shield bash perhaps rank 1. What is the real difference between that and using a rank 3 sword?

By your reasoning you would either have to disallow these as well, or just accept that the opponents ranks are ignored. And in the latter case accept that even the main armament can be used against the actor.

I think one of the problems arise from the fact that weapon and armour ranks are so similar to damage and armour points. But they are not, they affect combat even when no weapon impacts with armour.

In my eyes ranks represent advantages in combat arising from superior or inferior equipment. This can, of course, be differences in how much damage is dealt. But it can just as easily be because a man with a sword is more frightening than an unarmed man, thereby lessening the others will to fight.

> >Would you disallow Aski the Uroxi from defending using his Searing Wind Gust?
>
> Of course I wouldn't. What does this have to do with our discussion?
> We've spent all of it so far talking about ordinary weapon vs. weapon
> combat. Switching abilities is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I am thinking in terms of why allow Aski to defend using offensive magic (Searing Wind Gust) but not allowing him to defend with a anticipatory chop of his axe.

The whole point of this discussion is that I want to avoid the following scenario:

Five trollkin attack a player hero. The little runts have close combat 8 and our hero has 14W2.
The hero starts by chopping one of them to tiny pieces with his sword. The trollkin all do all out attacks as their only chance, bidding all their AP. Trollkin two misses, while the hero crits. The trollkin gets an elbow in the face for 16 AP.
Trollkin three misses, the hero crits. Ah, a boot to the groin, 16 AP? Trollkin four fumbles (the narrator has a bad dice day) while the hero gets a crit. The trollkins leaps at him and fumbles and hits his head real bad, 24 AP. Trollkin five.....you know what happens, he loses 16 AP by.....oh, I don't know...

Why can the hero not use his sword?

I can not find anything in the rules to prevent that.

I suppose you (Jonas) think you can :-&#92; Perhaps we should fight this out IRL, over a cup of coffe, instead?

-- 
Henrix

Powered by hypermail