Re: Attack and Defense

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:01:19 +0100


On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:16:51 +0200, Jonas Schiött <jonas.schiott_at_...rs.se> wrote:

>>'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.

Clear to you...

>>the actor (one initiating your contest.

I'd disagree slightly, instead the one initiating THIS EXCHANGE of the 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.

This does not equate actor with attacker.

>>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.

Disagree. Again, the comment should, I think, have read '... regardless of who initiated 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:

Glad to see we have an infallible authority with us :)

>>>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.

p140 talks about actors attacking, and opponents defending, but does NOT make any statement or implication that these are synonyms. The examples given do not cover any relevant results for use in this discussion.

>>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.

Yup.

>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.

They're called Heroes.

>>Combat does not work like RQ

Exactly, it doesn't. None of this I-attack-you-defend stuff, the two (or more) exchange blows. The winner hurts the loser.

>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.

No, only if he decides to turn 7AP into a Wound.

>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,

...good idea, since it isn't...

>I would say for reasons of game
>balance - it means that even 'combat monsters' can stumble and fall on
>occasion.

And in what way is this modified by using the winner's weapon Rank?

>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?

It doesn't. If you don't use a weapon, armour won't stop it. Just the same as if the Actor had initiated the exchange with 'Witty Repartee' (I thought it was time to bring old Oscar back) and won, the Opponent's Armour wouldn't count.

Wulf

Powered by hypermail