...
> Proposal: When someone ("CdGee") is about to be CdG'd, give him the
> opportunity... to launch
> some appropriate, completely separate, contest against the "CdGer" to
> stop it.
...
> Most likely it would be run as a simple contest.
It must not be an extended contest, because you would then have nested contests, which the rules specifically disallow (HW:NB pg 8), and for good reason.
As the CdG rules stand (HW:RiG pg 141), a CdG is a Parting Shot, that is, a normal exchange (an opposed ability roll), which can fail. You seem to be suggesting requiring that a CdG requires two such rolls. What, in narrative terms, do the TWO rolls represent. It seems to me that there is but one narrative action ('I kill my defeated opponent'), which should therefore be at most one roll. You don't think the CdG roll is a 'to hit' roll, do you?
The whole point of the CdG rule is to make it EASY to kill defeated opponents in combats, using a single roll. Without the CdG rule, you can still kill them, it just takes more rolls (you have to drive them to complete defeat). Therefore, altering the CdG rules to use more than one roll seems like a bad idea to me. If you think killing defeated opponents should require multiple rolls, you might do better to scrap the CdG rule entirely.
The CdG is an ACTION by the CdGer; at that point, they have the narrative focus and the CdGer's player decides what will happen. The CdGer should be calling the shots, not the other way around. By giving the CdGee the chance to launch another action, I think the action is stolen from the CdGer.
Powered by hypermail