But true in the real world and in fantasy. Once you have surrendered, your opponent can basically do what he wants with you: take your parole and release you; throw you in a dank prison cell; or kill you. The CdG rule *is* for battlefield decisions - it's how to make sure your enemies are dead, and won't come back with a final action.
> I'm not happy with 'special case' rules. Why is a combat different
> from other contests in this respect?
Because verbal attacks don't kill you dead. (Okay, some special magical ones can, I suppose, but normal non-magical ones can't)
> 'I point out the logical fallacy in his core argument.'
> APs are staked, the dice roll.
> 'Ah, he's defeated... dazed... urr, marginal... he stands there
> spluttering to himself, trying to think of something to say.'
> 'As he's helpless, I waste him with an ad hominem!'
You can do this using the parting shot rules, and if you *want* to add "verbal Coup de Grace" go ahead - but then you'll have to decide what "dead" means. I'd suggest that he does not fall down dead at your ad hominem attack, but instead loses something - his skill, reputation, etc.
> My interpretation of the contest rules (and therefore, arguably, how
> they are presented) was that the marginal and minor victory/defeat
> levels indicate that NEITHER side has entirely achieved their
> objective. An obvious combat interpretation of this is that both
> sides in a honicidal struggle decide to disengage, one more bloody
> than the other. Apparently, I am wrong, so how is such an outcome
> represented by the rules?
A marginal defeat means that you are probably surrendering (or, alternatively, running away from your nice high walls). You have lost the will to continue the contest. You are not physically unable to continue, but you have given up.
RR
Powered by hypermail