>Here is the crux of the matter, the poodle's kernel, so to speak. The
>reason I
>and others have accused you of reading RQ into HW.
You're the ones with the RQ fixation, not me. ;-)
>Where, in HW, do you find anything to support this, that the actor in an
>exchange is the only one allowed to make a blow?
Later on in the post you show that you've read Roderick's posting from jun 30. So now try reading it, and my own ramblings, again without the blinders on.
It's not a question of _allowing_, it's a question of _interpreting_.
You agree that the alternation of edges/handicaps is a fact, right? So what remains to discuss is how to translate this rules-speak into descriptive language. Isn't the most natural interpretation that the actor is making at least the majority of the offensive moves during 'his' particular exchange? If you feel that it isn't, can you give me a common-sense reason (i.e. one without reference to gaming systems) why not? And please lay off the elitist RPG-evolutionist 'march of progress' rhetoric...
Besides, an exchange is a very flexible period of time. In the case of the spearman vs. the lancer, I would say that the two exchanges occupy a fraction of a second each. And as I've already said, that could be taken as an excuse for making a single exchange (or even contest) out of it. But nobody's forcing you either way. Personally, I'm happy to have a system - or an interpretation of a system - that's flexible enough to be used consistently, without having to make on-the-spot judgements for every slightly unusual circumstance that crops up. I suppose you're going to call this forcing everything into one frame of reference. I call it expanding the frame instead of breaking it.
>I do
>not, actually, think the difference is that great between our playing
>styles ;-)
Me neither. We just differ in our attitude towards rules.
P.S. Bryan Thexton makes the most reasonable suggestion about charge vs. spears:
>it seems to me
>that the initial contest comes down to is the cavalry's ability to
>terrify vs. the infantry's willingness to stand firm.
Which is similar in form to my suggestion about your Assassin vs. Argrath example: when faced with a complex and potentially confusing situation, try breaking it down into more maneagable pieces.
Powered by hypermail