>I understand the alternating between who is the actor in an extended contest as
>a mere game mechanic. I do not want to be hindered from describing ripostes and
>preemptive strikes by such an abstract notion.
I don't believe you should be either!
>True, it is only the actor, according to Robertson, who gets an edge _or_
>handicap from the weapons and armour involved, but still!
That's certainly the way I understand the rules. To do otherwise would tend to make an 'offensive' defence more efficient than a 'defensive' one (because if you say "I hit him with a preemptive strike" you can claim your offensive edge, but if you say "I parry" you can't)
>If the actor loses 15
>AP in a bloody combat he gets hurt.
>
True - If he looses 7 he may be hurt if the winner chooses to cause a wound
-- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Ellis EMail tim_at_... | | What is the use of a book without pictures or conversations? | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Powered by hypermail