Made a small error, let me try again...
My reading is that C isn't in conflict with B, and won't be in conflict with A until A loses the contest. At which point there'll be a contest between A and C.
Mike
Mechanically, how would you handle the following, in terms of anextended contest.A heads up a regiment/troupe/family, and wants everyone available forguard duty/the big show/Aunt Gertrude's dinner.B wants permission to leave for a while, to travel to McGuffin place.C just wants to be with B, whether both staying put, or B going offwith guards/companions/servants (which include C).The contest between A and B is pretty straightforward, either B getspermission to go, or A enforces the desire to keep everyone together.But C could argue for either case (or even both ways depending on thesituation). C has distinct goals, so should have a separate AP pool,but during the discussion at times might be solely supporting one ofthe others.First of all, does this model even work at all?Second, if C is augmenting one of the others, and they lose anexchange, per the rules I see no effect on C. However C could ratheruse this to not risk any AP for most of the contest. Third, if C wants to make the grounds that either B stays or B goesbut with one or more companions (including C), to win would implydriving both others to zero or less AP—but that doesn't mean that thediscussion between A and B is done yet.Help!-Bryan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail