I disagree. Y might be trying to use their sword in both cases, but that is not the same as using his Close Combat (Sword) ability. The presence of a sword can be, from the rules PoV, mere chrome. If Y is chasing X, surely what matters is whether Y can catch X. We can take as read that Y will deal X a nasty sword strike if he catches him.
To give a related example, but of the opposite intent, consider a Vingan using her Leap Over Water feat to make a surprise attack on the leader of the bad guys, who was hanging back. Of course the surprise attack might user her spear, but the ability test would be Movement (Leap Over Water), not Combat (Spear & Shield). No?
...
> or using movement [to flee]
>
> X turns and runs. The narrator rules that this is a very big bid: if
> he looses he is likely to be cut down if he escapes Y will probably
> be unable to react. So hthe narrtor asks X to bid enough to drive Y
> to defeat...
...
But why should X take the risk of a big bid, hoping to defeat Y in one round, using his mediocre Run Fast when they could make a big bid using his better Close Combat, with a much better chance of success?
Do you think that attempting to disengage or flee should increase your survival chances? I do.
If so, the rules (or the way the Narrator uses them), must ensure that someone trying to disengage or flee actually has better survival chances. Your suggestion does not do this; quite the opposite.
Powered by hypermail