Re: Re: Combat Rules

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:59:19 -0800

> > 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?)

Dunno, possibly, but how big a penalty would be appropriate? Hanging it on the result of the (single) contst seems against the spirit of the AP mechanism (let's not get into any perceived clunkiness of the APs, please, that's a different question). But saying "I go for a Decapitation as a Special Effect" seems, well, wrong, if your special effect basically ends the contest.

What I might do is advocate for allowing multiple AP-wound penalties to be applied at once, so you could trade, say, 3x wound APs (whatever they might be: 5, 7, 10 or something else APs...) to disarm your opponent (a -3 penalty is the same as taking away a sword...)

RR
C'est par mon ordre et pour le bien de l'Etat que le porteur du pr�sent a fait ce qu'il a fait.
- Richelieu