No, Wesleys concern was that this might be a sign of a broken system, but his group was divided, much as this group. He did use the term 'obscene'.
>Now, Wesley and his group have being playing much longer than almost
>any other. I think it is significant that Wesley is NOT complaining
>that multiple augments from an affinity are a problem. Perhaps this
>is because, in his considerable experience, they are not a problem?
I think it is significant that some of his experienced group thought it was a sign of a broken system!
>So Dave et al, do any of you have any suggestions that actually
>tackle Wesley's concern? IIRC, so far the only suggestions that
>tackle this concern are various suggestions to limit the number of
>pre contest augmentations (three being a popular number, suggested by
>Roderick), and my suggestion that the scope of the extended contest
>be expanded to include the preparation.
Sure. Allow augments after the first to only act as edges. It works from the maths point of view, works from the game balance point of view.
It should more or less satisfy those who want multiple augments for some intuitive non-game reason. And much reduces many of the problems I have. For example, it won't allow someone to take on someone vastly their superior in skill without real danger - but it will enable their attacks against someone of roughly equal skill to be devastating.
It doesn't really answer Nicks problem that multiple augmentation is boring. Not much you can do about it - it is. But at least if its not quite such a decisive tactic the incentive to overuse it is reduced.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail