Re: Re: Augment-only stats

From: L C <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:17:19 -0500

David Dunham wrote:
>
>
> While by some definitions you could call it a category, something
> that has no more than one member is not usefully thought of as a
> category. Gloranthan magic is best thought of as a special case.
>

Well, yes. :)
>
> Another way to look at it is that affinities are extremely broad
> abilities, and the rules give guidance on how they are actually used.
>

Well, yes, I just find that one part of them not really useful.

Look, a lot of this is probably holdover from that rule being in HQ 1 and causing lots of problems in my game, which eventually turned it into "They are augments, except when they aren't", which made me decide defining them as augment-only was dumb, since they weren't.

The credibility-test rules of HQ2 make the distinction even more irrelevant IMO, so I was asking if other people find it useful outside of this very special case. (I don't even find it useful in this very special case, as I've said.)

Todd provided examples where he would also make certain abilities augment only, so some people do find it useful outside of this special case. (I don't find it useful for any of his cases either, so at least I'm consistent. ^__^ ) It shows some people do think its a useful category, so that was an interesting piece of information. As is so often the case, what seems obvious to me is not the case for lots of other people. :-)

LC