Re: Re: Edges and Handicaps

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:25:13 +0200

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Ian Cooper wrote:
> So to clarify the interpretation is:
> actor - decides bid
> opponent - non-bidder
> attacker - winner of contest
> defender - loser of contest
>
> and with these definitions we use:
>
> edge/handicap modifier to AP lost/transferred = (attackers
> weapon rank + sum of attacking feat edges) - (defenders armor rank +
> sum of defensive feat edges)
>
> No?

Yes!
But with the added complication (simplification?) that according to p. 136, you _may_ , if you wish, even it out so that only one contestant has an edge. If we use this to the full extent, we get:

Final Edge = (Geo1's Weapon Rank + Other Offensive Edges + Armour Rank + Other Defensive Edges) - (Geo2's Weapon Rank + Other Offensive Edges + Armour Rank + Other Defensive Edges)

(Provided of course that Geo1's sum is higher than Geo2's, otherwise give Geo2 an edge equal to the absolute result, i.e. ignore the "-" sign.)

Simple, huh?

The downsize is of course that all things become equal. It does not matter if it is a good weapon, armour, offensive edge or whatever, only the numbers are important, which is a bit boring.
It could of course be very useful if you wish your characters to wade through hordes of lesser opponents.

Is it rational in other than game mechanic terms? Why not, if you have to watch out for the enemy's Lightning Sword it is of course harder to get in and land a telling blow. It is easier to keep your foe at bay with a pike than with a broken bottle, but if the enemy has a pike things are equal.

I do not advocate that this is how one should always do it. But according to the rules you can, and I think there are occasions where you should.

-- 
Henrix