Frankly I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Mastery rule and just keeping the table "clean". Let two evenly matched opponents slowly wear each other down Lancelot-Gawain style. Description-wise, in combat you could put the AP loss down to fatigue, chopped-up armor, nicked and bent weapons, sweat dripping into the eyes, etc. In debate put it down to frustration at not getting your point across, frustration at your opponenen't s thick-headedness, devolving into ad hominem attacks, flames, temper (just look at any list discussion for more examples of what happens when two otherwise rational people start talking past each other...).
As a real-world example: The battle between the Monitor & the Merrimac in the American Civil War shows what happens when neither side can harm the other. Both sides can claim victory (The North claimed that they drove off the Merrimac, the South saved a military asset by retreating up river), but neither side managed to do much more than put dents in the other's armor. In HW terms, I'd give both ships "w2" in both arms & armor (either one could sink any number of wooden ships without fear - the Merrimac did so the day before), but considering the effects, I'd give them both low rating masteries. In Die rolling, either they rolled an awful lot of ties (no effect to either side), or the mastery rule was not in effect (so they both lost a little efficiency in relation to each other during each "round"). Certainly no-one really "won" the engagement, even by a marginal victory (from my reading of the event, which has not been a primary focus of my life. I'll certainly defer to someone who has more detailed knowledge of it).
That's the way *I* see it, anyways.
RR
Powered by hypermail