> > >Oh yeah, one more. A dog man is attacking a hero with his bite (^1).
> The
> > >hero is defending with his spear and shield combat ability (^3) and
> > >wearing leather armor (^2 all together for armor). The dog man bids 5
> and
> > >suffers a marginal defeat. Would the dog man lose just 5 APs, or would
> it
> > >lose 8 APs (5 bid plus 3 for the spear)?
> >
> > The latter.
> > Wulf
>
> This bit I dont get. If the dog man is the actor, doesnt he just lose the 5
> APs he bid?
> After all, the spear's edge etc doesnt come into it, until the hero makes
> his action...
>
> Confused
> Rusty
Confused, but correct, yonder Rusty! ;-) This even makes game-world sense: the dog man has to take the same risk (5AP if he loses), to get an effect that's reduced (4AP if he wins) because of the difficulty in biting through leather armour.
The edge from the heortling's spear only effects _his_ attack, not the dog man's.
Currently I'm toying with the notion of making edges and handicaps somewhat _more_ common in combat. In particular, if the actor were commonly to end up with one or t'other, it would make the my action/your action see-saw seem slightly less 'samey'. For a start this means 'death to the edge-cancelling rule' -- but that's no shock headline, I've felt that for some considerable period of time, it serves no useful purpose at all. (Unless you consider adding arithmetic, reducing game-world correspondance, and makes the game-play less interesting to be Purposes...) Though since I've not yet bothered with the weapons and armour rules, that'd at least be a place to start...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail