Combat complete victory

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:06:16 +0100

Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
> Usually even a marginal victory can count as "achieving a goal", depending,
> of course, on what, exactly, the goal *is*. If it is to kill/completely
> discredit/whatever, then yes, it generaly needs a complete victory. But a
> marginal victoey puts you in a position in which you can kill them at your
> leisure (accept their surrender, put them in fetters, and then whack their
> head off.


Which is to say that the victor in a combat always has the option of increasing their victory level to Complete Victory. I assume you mean with the Coup de Grace rule; but that doesn't apply if the loser is only 'Dazed', IIRC. You seem to be saying that the option of a CdG is always available. OTOH, you seem to be saying that the victors can achieve Complete Victory at their leisure, which makes the CdG rule rather pointless (urgent victories excepted).

I'm not happy with 'special case' rules. Why is a combat different from other contests in this respect?

'I point out the logical fallacy in his core argument.' APs are staked, the dice roll.
'Ah, he's defeated... dazed... urr, marginal... he stands there spluttering to himself, trying to think of something to say.' 'As he's helpless, I waste him with an ad hominem!'

My interpretation of the contest rules (and therefore, arguably, how they are presented) was that the marginal and minor victory/defeat levels indicate that NEITHER side has entirely achieved their objective. An obvious combat interpretation of this is that both sides in a honicidal struggle decide to disengage, one more bloody than the other. Apparently, I am wrong, so how is such an outcome represented by the rules?

Powered by hypermail