Re: Re: Combat Rules

From: Lightcastle <light_castle_at_...>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:54:05 -0500


On Friday 23 December 2005 2:38 am, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
> Remember, this is *my* way of thinking, not necessarily anyone else's....
Indeed.

And I must go to sleep soon, anyway. :)

> You misunderstand (of course, you're making me try to remember my thought
> proceses for a 3-week old conversation...).

And for that I apologize.

> After all, digging in your saddlebags for something is specifically listed
> as "unrelated", even if what you're digging for is the Holy Handgrenade of
> Antioch. So you can use an "unrelated action" to set up for a AP swap in a
> later round.

Which makes sense.

> Frankly, if there is a 2nd ed. and I'm involved in it, I'll be advocating
> that the whole notion of "related" and "unrelated" actions get scrapped.
> Actions can swap APs, can set up bonuses or penalties for the contestants,
> might do a special effect, etc., but it's all meant to further the contest.

Now I could probably get behind that. Would you scrap the wounding rules, then? (Drop the 7ap for a -1 and just offer a "hit to wound" idea as a set up a penalty roll?)

LC

Powered by hypermail