help with IaWA
stefoid:
That link was helpful, thanks.
I dont understand why the challenger has to name answerers in any situation at all - it seems redundant and confusing.
Quote from: lumpley on April 15, 2010, 11:12:06 AM
Well, yeah, if it gets to the sorcerer's turn and there are no outstanding challenges he wants to answer, he gets to make a challenge himself. This IS following the rules, not playing loose with them.
"The Sorcerer was also supposed to Answer the the headsman's Challenge" doesn't make sense to me. There's no such rule.
The sorcerer wanted to answer the headman's challenge, but didn't have the opportunity after all. Or maybe the headman expected the sorcerer to answer his challenge, but it didn't work out that way. Those are fine; that's how it goes sometimes.
Ah! Yes. Declarations about who should answer and who intends to answer aren't binding, they're just table talk. I think I've written about this somewhere, let me see if I can find it...
And look at that! It was in a conversation with you, Paul: [IaWA] Challenger names Answerers, Answerers Call Back Later
-Vincent
stefoid:
OK, try this then: (TALKING IN CAPS) (dice stuff in italics)
1) everybody rolls for initiative, which determines move order for the round
2) the first player to move leaves his dice stand as his move roll, and ANNOUNCES HIS MOVE
3) anyone answering that move (trying to prevent it), in order of initiative, rolls their answer, and the outcome is resolved as follows:
3a) if multiple characters oppose the move, there is an advantage in numbers. Challenger may have to overcome multiple answerers to achieve his move.
3b) the answerer(s) NARRATE HOW their action modifies the challenger action, if at all.
3c) multiple answerer actions happen in a linear sequence, each taking previous outcomes into account. i.e. it is possible for the Challenger to win outright before an answerer has a chance to act.
4) answering robs you of your unused turn to move that round
5) the next person who has not answered moves next in initiative order and so on
6) anyone who wins as either the challenger or the answerer gets an initiative dice to use for the duration of the *next* round, even if they fail subsequent answers in the current round.
7) parties who were previously not involved in the contest can join in at any time, either at the start of the round when initiative is rolled, or by deciding to answer any announced move during the round (in which case they answer last). This does not extend the number of rounds of the contest.
way:
Just nitpickin'...
3a really does not add anything to the mix, you can simply omit that.
However, I wuld put emphasis on the fact that if you are to be the second or third answerer, and the previous answerers' resolution sounds ok to you,
you might decide not to answer at all. This way you might get to announce your very own Challenge later on, instead of answering.
In 6, the game text calls it an "advantage die", not an initiative dice.
As a sidenote, we've been playing 6. the way that you will have to win all your rolls to get an advantage die next round, not only one. This gives more advantage of two or more are stacking up against one. We felt that this works better.
Paul T:
Quote from: stefoid on April 18, 2010, 08:02:16 PM
I dont understand why the challenger has to name answerers in any situation at all - it seems redundant and confusing.
It helps clarify why and how the Challenger is doing what they're doing: another way for the group to make sure they're communicating clearly. It's helpful, really.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page