> Wulf and I clearly interpret the rules very differently - nothing
wrong with
> that, ambiguity is a designed in feature and so this sort of thing
is bound
> to happen.
Makes transferring between groups and running competitions a bitch
though, and that I must grumble about...
>
> > to deal with a shield-breaker manoeuvre, I intend to use the
7AP=Wound
> > rule.
> I think the rules say that only the loser can choose to accept a
wound in
> exchange for 7AP.
Nope, sorry, but only the WINNER can chose to inflict a wound.
>
> > If your stated intention is 'Smash his shield' {notes on edges
etc.
> follow}
> In my opinion if your stated intent is to 'Smash his shield' if you
win the
> contest (extended or simple dependant upon narrative importance)
then you've
> smashed his shield! He dazed, hurt, dying as appropriate but the
shield is
> gone.
I would still require a minimum ammount of effect, shields are pretty
tough - bidding 3 AP and smashing a shield is a bit off! In a Simple
Contest, agreed, however, with Improv. penalties for Iron shields
(well, Iron-bound, or whatever, shields are almost always wooden) and
similar tough opposition. And if the impact is on the shield, it
shouldn't have such an effect on the weilder (7 APs less in my rules).
>
> > Same applies to 'Shield Breaker' Feats
> IMO 'Shield Breaker' Feat should be used to augment close combat
skill as
> per normal rules.
It CAN be, yes, but obviously it could be used to break shields, and
reduce the opponent's defences.
>
> > and attacks aimed at 'I'll break his damn leg!'
> Close combat with improvisation penalty - win the contest the leg
is broken
> (extent of fracture dependant upon final AP score as per normal
rules).
I would definately say a broken leg counts as a Wound... But agreed,
a simple Improv. penalty would be simpler.
>
> Again wounds can only accepted by loser not inflicted by the winner.
Sorry, but wrong way round...
>
> I'm not criticising Wulf but it seems to me that you're inventing
lots of
> extra special little rules to handle every combat eventuality.
Am I? I wanted to simply use an existing rule - about the ONLY
existing combat-specialised rule, Wounds - to cover all cases. I'm
not adding or changing any mechanics, just extending the use of
existing mechanics.
> That must
> suit your groups style of play but my lot could never remember all
the
> little fiddly bits.
It would actually, some of them play Rolemaster... Not me though, I
like one rule fits all
"I want to..."
"Inflict a Wound and you've done it"
> PS How do you double feint in HW anyway? Mmm... easy if it's
listed as a
> skill or feat but what if the player just wants to do it anyway?
High AP bid.
Wulf