"Alain Rameau" wrote:
>1/ As already discussed on this list, I think it could make sense to
>allow (depending on the circumstances) a loser to trade 7 AP for a
>wound as well (for example, if running short of AP). What was the
>conclusion on this topic ?
I'd be cautious about such a rule, because there is no limit to the number of wounds a character can take. So characters can opt to soak up a load of damage while blocking an opponent completely, and there is nothing he can do to get past them. If he is winning the contests it should be up to him what happens.
>2/ I guess this "7" figure comes from some average mathematical
>calculation ? However, would it make sense to create some special
>deadly weapons that would allow to trade 6 AP for a wound, or even 5 ?
Such weapons or abilities already provide an edge or can be used to
gain an edge. So you already get this effect (eg: for a rank 5 weapon
you only need to bid 2 to cause a wound). If you put in this new rule to
allow you to _also_ have to do less to wound then you are doubling the
effect of edges and causing quite a bit more maths into the bargain.
At the moment the wound level is a fixed number, so I dont have to
think about it. The fact that edges 'normally' cancel is quite
important, as in the current rules when they cancel they no longer
have to be remembered, but in your model they have to be remembered
every exchange.
So personally I'd vote against.
>Same for some magic feat allowing the same on a weapon, or the
>reverse with defensive magic (kind of Dullblade in RQIII terms) which
>would only allow a wound for 8 or 9 AP, or more ?
Same as above. Its already built in.
Powered by hypermail