Actually, no, I do not. If you are thinking of the Roderick Robertsons famous
post, he is only talking about edges/handicaps gained from equipment ranks.
Not other edges.
(Not that I necessarily agree with him, but I suppose he knows what was
intended in the rules ;-)
> 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?
Yes, of course. But you seem adamant against allowing the opponent to make any sort of offensive action whatsoever. You have stated that ripostes are not covered in the rules, which I find to be a nonsensical statement.
Of course preemptive strikes and ripostes and whatnot are covered in the rules.
If it is dramatic, fun, exciting, why not use it? Whyever should we disdain
from describing a 24 AP forfeit from the actor as a riposte, if that would fit
into the story?
Would you disallow Aski the Uroxi from defending using his Searing Wind Gust?
Remember "The opponent declares how he intends to use an ability to stop the player" (sic!), HW:RiG p.127.
You choose an ability and how you want to use it.
If Aski is going berserk, acting with the statement: "I run to Hiord (less than 6 yards, so it just costs one AP) and try to chop his legs of with my axe". Could not Hiord declare that he wants to stop him with a thrust of his spear?
Choice is good!
-- Henrix
Powered by hypermail