RR:
> Anyone faced with a -10 Handicap/Defensive Edge is in a bad way to begin
> with. Claiming that he's screwed *because* of the rules is ignoring the fact
> that he is screwed *outside* of the rules. Is anyone going to defend a
> RQ-style "I have a 1d4 Fist and he's wearing Iron Plate worth 12 points" as
> "screwed by the rules"?
[...]
> And yes, edges & handicaps only reduce a bid to 1, not 0.
In this case, I think that 0 would give the more desirable effect, actually.
With the "1" rule, as has been commented, your "best strategy" as a rule will be to be ultra-cautious, and always bid 1. Hang back, and wait for an opening in your opponent's copious armour-plating, or analogues thereof.
With the "0" rule, OTOH, you'd be "incentivised" to bid high -- no sense in bidding 10 or less, and even bidding 11 is rather "lossy". Better to bid 20, if you can afford to, and then you're only "wasting" half your bid. In other words, all-out attack -- "break through at any cost".
You're screwed either way, but as Rory says, that's something of a given of the situation. In game-play terms, I prefer the latter situation, as first "high bids are More Heroic(TM)" (or more desparate in this case, but often it amounts to the same thing <g>), and also because it allows a bit more variety. In the first situation you'd generally bid _exactly_ 1, whereas in the second it's much more fuzzy: the higher the better, statistically, though also the higher the risker. (If you have a compensating TN advantage, there's a countervailing incentive not to bid _too_ high.)
Powered by hypermail