>'attacker' (not a properly defined term - one creating the hurt)
I agree this lacks an explicit definition, but the usage is fairly clear - it's whoever is staking the AP.
>the actor (one initiating your contest.
Most of the time, yeah, but see Group Extended Contests, p.132: "During a round, every character in the contest gets the chance to participate in an exchange as an actor." The actor/attacker is the one initiating the _exchange_, not the one initiating the contest as a whole.
>If you are the one inflicting
>the damage, you use the edges and flaws of your weapon vs their
>armour, regardless of who initiated the combat.
Yes, but not regardless of who is controlling the exchange.
>Whether it is the
>edge of your armour or your weapon that comes into play depends on
>how you succeed at the contest - not whether you are acting or not.
Sorry, wrong. I've already given the right answer:
>>No, it depends on who's the attacker and who's the defender in any
>>particular exchange.
>
> There is no such thing.
Yes there is. Look in the Glossary under "Exchange". It uses the terms "actor" and "opponent", but "attacker" and "defender" are used as synonyms of these elsewhere, e.g. on p.140.
>There is actor and opponent, but if
>both are using their fighting skill both are attacking and defending
>in any given exchange.
No, no, no. No.
Then again, I guess you _could_ run it this way. ;-) The rules _are_ sufficiently vague for you to push your interpretation more or less consistently.
But what happens then is that characters with superior equipment and/or magic become pretty much unstoppable. I prefer a little less predictability.
>Combat does not work like RQ - if the defender
>wins, they have not just escaped unharmed, they have hurt their
>opponent.
Yes, but the 'hurt' is not necessarily in the form of wounds. When you lose an exchange that you controlled (staked the AP for), it doesn't mean that your opponent has delivered a quick counterblow. It means that you misjudged the distance, tripped over a rock, overextended yourself or otherwise worsened your tactical situation. Your armor and the defender's weapon aren't relevant to this. Why not, you ask? Well, disregarding the "It is written" argument for a moment, I would say for reasons of game balance - it means that even 'combat monsters' can stumble and fall on occasion. Also for reasons of narrative flow: maybe the defender isn't actually fighting you, but trying to run away or maneuver past you - how does your armor stop that?
Powered by hypermail