Consider for instance, the Arthurian Knights, fighting in single combat in a battle that lasts for hours as they bash each others shiny plate mail with their great swords - In this case, all the edges have probably been cancelled out, making the combat much more "even", and much less bloody.
Alternatively, consider the two samurai staring each other down in an iaijutsu duel, when, following the sudden flash of the razor sharp katana, only one gets to walk away. In this case (as well as the high bid...) the full edge is probably applied to ensure the opponent takes the full consequence of the blow...
And while I can see the argument of "setting your spear" against the charge, I still prefer to treat combat as "Active player wins (Bid + positive edges - negative edges) or looses (Bid)" - Unless you choose to inflict a wound, why should "I stand in the open, setting my spear against his charge (Close combat 17)" automatically be a better defence than "I dive under the fallen log where he won't be able to reach me without getting off his horse (Squeeze into narrow gaps 17)"?
I think I'd rather change the "order of action" in cases like this if it was absolutely necessary to adjudge the effect of the spear on the charger before the results of the charge on the chargee...
-- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis EMail tim_at_... |
| What is the use of a book without pictures or conversations? |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Powered by hypermail