> No, you are risking X APs in order to deplete the opposition by X APs. If
> they were each knocked down by X, then that would make it more
> effective in
> many circumstances to attack two at once than one at a time, as you are
> risking X in order to achieve 2X. A fair criticism would be that
> penalising
> by 3 per extra opponent *and* using the highest opposing roll is making it
> harder by two different mechanisms, which strikes me as a possible design
> error.
Do you mean that you are penalized twice even though you are aiming at the same net result? Something must be eluding me...
On the contrary, if you resolve each attack separately you have a wider range of outcomes, of which only one would be risk X and achieve 2X. You can lose 2X, lose X and an opponent loses X, both opponents lose X (net effect achieve 2X) and so on... Seems to me more interesting and sensible.
Anyway, suppose that I want to use the rule as it is written (after all if I run a demo I can't use my HR, can't I?). Are edges (such as weapon ranks) added after the split or before? And handicaps? Especially armor ranks, which could be different between the two opponents (this could be a FAQ, as the multiple attack rule is not so clear IMO).
Thom:
> I just feel one exchange equals roughly one blow/arrow etc.
If this is your opinion then it's certainly fine for me, but I don't think that one (armed) exchange equals one blow/arrow no more than a (verbal) exchange equals one word!
Cheers, An eluding Alex.
Powered by hypermail