Well that depends on the extent to which you feel that that particular rule reflects "reality" rather than being a feature of the mechanics. In my view it is probably there to make sure that contests end in a reasonable amount of time. And I don't think that anyone was insisting on such actions, just that actions had to make narrative sense (i.e. you CAN fight from the ground if you want to, but if you want to be standing then standing has to be at least part of an action - perhaps just mentioning it, perhaps taking the whole action if there is a significant resistance to be dealt with).
Conceptually there is no problem with making moves that put you in a better position to go for a win
>
>Indeed, as mentioned I think by someone else, one might argue that if an
>action _isn't_ phrased in such a way as to make it seem as if it 'helps
>win' the contest, it ought to be treated as an unrelated action (if it's
>appropriate at all).
I have to disagree - certainly in cases where a change in position was the explanation of an AP loss. If a result shifted the AP balance against you then reversing that result ought to shift the balance in your favour.
-- -- "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