Re: Re: Defensive Edge = Min. bid?

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:37:43 GMT

> Well, the specific scenario was a poor little ol' NPC, who doesn't have the
> "Bid up to your starting AP" option and who currently has only 9 AP left, so
> he *can't* bid high, facing a Armor^10 opponent. By the time the NPC has
> reached this level, it's all over but the looting of the body, assuming he
> stays on the "hit him with a weapon" course. That's why he needs to think of
> some other way to fight that doesn't rely on hitting with weapons against
> that armor.

Yes, valid point. This is a little too messy a suggestion to make a Nice Clean Crisp Rule (as I'm sure you all know I not so secretly prefer), but how I'd be inclined to play it (as you can tell from the subjunctive mood, it's not something that's come up a whole helluva lot in play) is that "hard cases" get the (miniscule) benefit of the 1AP minimum, while people with a TN advantage and sitting on a pile of 50APs, choosing to bid 1AP a time because it's the "optimal" strategy, do not.

Or if you prefer something more systematic (and poker-inspired), how about this:

Minimum effect of a bid is 0, _unless_ you "go all in", i.e. bid all your remaining APs. Then you get a net effect of at least 1, regardless of other factors. (Better "double through" a few times...)

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail