I think I've already given my answer to the question. I can't give a single answer which will apply in every possible circumstance. That's why I use my imagination in game.
> > Every time I describe what is happening in an Extended Contest, the
> description
> > is contextual. I decide based on the location I've narrated, what
>
> But here the context tries to hold you to absolutes, becuase no
> matter how abstract you want archery to be, you would probably find a
> player with a single quiver firing a thousand arrows ridiculous.
Yes. But not much more ridiculous than I'd find a single warrior striking a thousand sword blows with taking a breather. Face it, how many times is that situation going to crop up in play. I've rarely seen an Extended Contest go past 7 rounds.
> Thats the problem with ammo, a problem which does not arise in H2H
> combat. The nature of ranged combat - distance, ammo - tends to pull
> us in the mechanically determined direction.
IMO, only if you want/need it to.
> > If the archer has APs left, he still has arrows and an opportunity
> to fire. If
>
> Well, that is a strategy I considered, but I had a problem when
> applied to a range of circumstance. If the loss comes about as an AP
> transfer to an opponent, surely the issue is moot. If it is a
> forfeit, well that feels like "missing", but surely a player could
> argue they are standing next to a barrel of arrows and thus, whatever
> else may happen, running out is not on the cards.
But if I was narrator, I could veto that argument if I wanted The thing is, once the character has run out of APs, we rationalise it. If he's standing next to a "barrel of infinite arrows", it clearly wasn't because he ran out of ammo. So we just come up with another narrative reason that *does* fit the circumstances of the game in progress.
> What if the
> character is engaged in close combat, do you carry the same AP over
> despite any difference between the close and ranged combat skills?
Yes, as per HW p129 and 137-138.
> If the result of losing all AP (and thus the contest) is to be
> reduced to no arrows, then are not archers unkillable if they enter
> an archery (as opposed H2H) contest?
I didn't say this was the *only* explanation. I said it was a possible one. What you do is, you use your imagination to fit the scene as it is evolving in play.
> > Well, running out of arrows is something the narrator might use
> when the
> > contest is over (i.e., the archer has no APs left), not for a loss
>
> Right. And yet, would you then rule that a character who lost all
> their AP's in an archery contest was still unable to resist an
> opponent, even if that opponent is, in context, a hundred yards
> away? After all they have been defeated.
It would depend on the situation being described and what the two characters' objectives for the contest were.
> What if they were a better
> swordsman than archer, but began the contest at range - would you
> take AP from ranged combat or close combat?
Depends what ability they used to start the contest. If they decided to use Close Combat and charge to close the range, then from Close Combat. If they decided to keep the range open and fire a bow, then from Ranged Combat.
> > Mind you, at least if you've got a wet bow string, you might have a
> spare in
> > your bag or under your hat.
>
> Yes, perhaps. But I'm not too keen on relying on happy chance for
> this sort of thing. What if the scene I'm running has a stark naked
> archer, for whatever reason?
If the archer is naked, then maybe he's hidden it in an intimate place? I don't think I can write a description of how to handle an archer running out of APs which will cover every eventuality. What we're talking about here, though, is whether or not you want to have minute control of every item of equipment. That is, whether or not the character has an item if it isn't specifically noted on the character sheet. I'm prepared to be liberal on this, as long as it makes sense. To me, it would be unlikely that a well-prepared archer has no spare bowstring. But I'd need a *very* good explanation from a player if they decided that the character had, say, Stormbringer in his pocket.
> > Or the warriors have Augmented their Close Combat skill with Ranged
> Combat. Or
>
> Possibly, but do you make all the hundred rolls? Take an average?
Who said anything about making 100 rolls? HW isn't a mass combat system. If I wanted to run a battle with 100s of warriors, I'd probably use some mass combat rules (like Roderick's), or justhave one "leader" type do all the rolling and just treat the other 99 warriors as followers and simply add their APs to his pool (see HW p139).
> > Or the warriors have Augmented their Close Combat skill with Ranged
> Combat. Or
>
> How do you apply that to player characters who are on the receiving
> end?
In exactly the same way: the NPCs augment their Close Combat with Ranged Combat.
> > used Ranged Combat in the first round of the Extended Contest and
> then switched
> > to Close Combat.
>
> Then they would/should use their RC for AP purposes, which I don't
> think feels right.
Then you could use one of the other options I suggested. Or come up with another solution of your own. I'm sure there are more ways than I came up with of using the rules as written to simulate this situation. :)
> > Or you could roll a Simple Contest of Ranged Combat vs Running as
> the enemy
> > close to see how much the volley of fire affects them before the
> hand-to-hand
> > action starts.
>
> Which introduces the conflict between the simple contest within an
> extended contest.
In this case, the Simple Contest happens and is over before the Extended Contest begins.
> I don't think that the rules as they stand really do
> describe it elegantly, becuase it seems to require a rules call on
> every case. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and if you are
> happy with it, cool, I'm just shooting the breeze about a difficulty
> I have with the rules as they stand. I really don't like the idea of
> having to rationalise this stuff on the fly without at least some
> sort of systematic guideline.
Yeah, the rules aren't *perfect*, but they do the job well enough for my purposes. They suit my style of play. To me, adding extra "special circumstances" and formulae for keeping track of ammo/whatever are the start of loading a simple and flexible system down and, frankly, spoiling it.
I've found, while playing the game, that having to rationalise the AP fluctu ations on the fly makes for far more interesting and *fun* descriptions of contests. Gives the narrators and players much more scope to let their imagination swashbuckle.
I think this issue is something the pair of us may have to agree to differ on.
Regards,
Bruce
Powered by hypermail