No, but I got the impression (rightly or not) that Roderick wasn't happy with actions that did not directly contribute to success.
> Are you focusing on the tasks
>being done rather than the objective, perhaps?
No, I don't think so.
>
>To kill an opponent in a combat, a PC does NOT need to attack using
>Close Combat. They can perofrm actions that render the oponent helpless,
>giving a Complete Defeat, and have the description of the Complete
>Defeat involve a sword blow.
Yes, I fully agree.
>
>What about augmentations? They can be said to indirectly contribute to
>victory.
Augments aren't used directly in exchanges - they're unrelated actions if they're action at all.
>
>> Fixing a problem improves the character's
>> position by depriving the opponent of an advantage.
>...
>
>The HQ contest resolution is zero-sum (your Major Victory is their Major
>Defeat), so there is no rules difference between removing their
>advantage and giving them a disadvantage.
>
More to the point, AP changes (other than loans) are always losses to
one side, so all effects are expressed as a "worsening" of position.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail