If the enemy was trying to close to hurt the archers then an archer who fell to -ve AP got too close and their opponent succeeded in doing so. The problem seems to be narrating someone succeeding in their action (staying out of close combat) while the mechanics indicated that they failed (they went to -ve AP). To quote the original post "Suppose PC1 does stay out of close combat range", well why suppose that in defiance of the AP levels unless you are making assumptions about how one archer cannot be in close combat unless the others are (which we know they are not because they are winning).
Maybe I am jumping to conclusions but I'm trying to figure out why anyone would continue to suppose anything of this sort when the dice rolls and AP levels are telling us that the story has taken a quite different turn.
I probably should not have jumped in as I see this as a bit of a nonproblem, if you choose not to narrate the ongoing shifts of AP (i.e. you declare that none of the opposition have made it to close combat even though an archer is on -ve AP) then narrating your way out of the hole you have dug is just something you are going to have to learn to do. This is generally true for a narrator ignoring the actual ongong results of a contest and is not a particular feature of archery.
> Certainly you should 'allow for individual consequences', but,
> compared to melee, these do not seem very convincing except in
> specific, and usually rare, circumstances. There isn't an apparent
> 'standard' form of defeat.
>
Obviously not, all it means is that your opponent succeeded in their aims, so the form of the defeat will depend on those aims.
-- Nic
Powered by hypermail