Here's a line of argument:
Your objective will have to be interpretted according to your level
of victory. Therefore you can't have an objective that implies
permanence (or transience) such as "kill the enemy" anyway.
> I think the answer to this problem is to rule that actions
> have to be relevant to your chosen objective for the contest,
> if you are to have a
> chance of gaining APs (move towards your objective).
APs represent your capacity to act. You move towards your objective by making your opponent lose APs, not by gaining them yourself.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with Ben, but I am saying that only your offensive actions must be relevant to your chosen objective.
> A combatant who
> pleads for mercy has changed their objective to 'escape injury', so
> returning to positive APs does not allow them to resume killing.
But maybe not if the plead is a defense against their opponent's action.
After some chewing, I would allow Wealth/Ransom to be used to defend
against a possibly lethal attack. (The attacker might gain an autoaugment
if they have an appropriate character trait, or an ability
like Sworn to Slay All Enamies.)
If you succeed, then the attacker thinks twice, giving you a possible
opening (kinda cowardly and dishonest if you to use it though), on
their next turn they might make a less dangerous move; to which the
same defense could not be applied.
I don't think I'd allow Wealth to be used for the last desperate action.
Cheers,
Jim
Powered by hypermail