>Ranks are optional. Edges and handicaps aren't (though you don't have
>to use them). Hence when you discuss edges you do not automatically
>refer to ranks, or indeed at all.
Ah. Indeed. Perhaps I've been fixating too much on ranks. As you say, 'normal' edges are on the side of the winner, if he has any. I still say that ranks are different, but since you don't use them there's not much point in arguing with you about it...
>The comment that the Actor can only
>ever lose no more than his bid is incorrect.
If you only use normal edges, not ranks, sure. Besides, then there is only one edge operative in each contest - assuming you're using the 'cancelling edges' rule.
Henrix, possibly inspired by Mikael, makes the same point:
>> You agree that the alternation of edges/handicaps is a fact, right?
>
>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.
Yes, I agree to this. But since I, unlike Mikael, use ranks, I see some enhancements as actually giving ranks instead of edges. Not all of them, but those that seem to target a specific piece of equipment. Apart from making intuitive sense, it can avoid mixing ranks and normal edges in the same contest, and that has to be a good thing.
>(Not that I necessarily agree with him, but I suppose he knows what was
>intended in the rules ;-)
And that's what this whole argument was originally about, wasn't it? By now it's mutated into something else, but it started out as a question of who was reading the rulebook properly...
>>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.
Nonsense. In previous posts, I've listed numerous aggressive maneuvers the defender can execute, even your famous boot to the groin. I would also go along with for instance an elbow to the solar plexus or a shield bash to the helmet. The _only_ restriction I want to apply is not allowing the defender a use of his primary weapon that constitutes an attack (has the possibility to draw blood), and that's only to avoid arguments in play. If a defending player wins an exchange and this is described as "He swings at you, but you get your sword in under his guard first" or some such, what do you say to the player who asks "But why didn't I get to apply my weapon rank then?" As has been pointed out before, you can't let the player's description of his action determine whether or not a particular rank is used. That's the path to utter confusion. So to make things easier I would instead say "He swings at you, but you knock his sword out of the way with your own. He's lost his balance and is open to attack. What do you do?"
There should be a consistent process to follow that allows play to flow smoothly, without constant interruptions to debate the rules. If this means that in the normal run of things a few descriptive options are under-utilised, then so be it.
>Would you disallow Aski the Uroxi from defending using his Searing Wind Gust?
Of course I wouldn't. What does this have to do with our discussion? We've spent all of it so far talking about ordinary weapon vs. weapon combat. Switching abilities is a whole 'nother can of worms.
>Could not Hiord declare that he wants to stop him with a thrust of his spear?
Sure. Then he can spend the 5 AP to take an action before his turn. That's your preemptive strike right there, perfectly covered in the rules. Ripostes are also covered: they're what you do when it's your turn to act. As I've said before, just compress time so the two exchanges happen very quickly.
The HW rules exhort players to _not_ describe actions in terms of results but in terms of, well, actions. "I impale the stupid sod on my spear!" is not a good statement of intent because it's assuming you will succeed. "I try to deflect his path or even discourage him from charging by interposing my spear" is much better.
Besides, I've found that in actual play things move much faster if defensive actions are passed over quickly and the lavish descriptions are saved for one's own attacks instead.
David Cake:
> I choose between it being an edge/handicap or a bonus/penalty
>based on my feel for what is happening, rather than the source of the
>edge. If it makes an 'attack' more damaging, but not more accurate,
>its an edge. If it makes an 'attack' more likely to land, or a skill
>more likely to succeed, its an edge.
Very reasonable. Assuming the last word is supposed to be "bonus". :-) I agree with the rest of your post, too.
> There is a difference between "proper edges" and weapon rank
>edges, though it can be a bit difficult to see at times.
The difference is that you always get to apply an edge if you have it and win the exchange. Ranks have the added restriction that you also have to be on the right 'end' of the exchange, attacking or defending as the case may be, for a particular rank to apply.
Guy Hoyle:
>If a player comes to me
>wanting, for example, a magic sword, an enchanted bracer, or a Torc of
>Mighty Rulership, where can I find guidance about how to assign the edge?
Or bonus, or AP boost... I think the place to start looking is HW p.232f, "Permanent Enchantments". It isn't crystal clear, but I assume that in the second contest mentioned, you add an extra resistance based on how powerful an enhancement you're trying for.
Powered by hypermail