> > Why is a "bad thing" if targets of attacks are delayed one day? Only makes
> > sense to me, that being attacked should should slow you down. I supose if it
> > "stop"ed a move, that WOULD be bad, but making the move take a day longer,
> > that seems right. I know that people will use small, throw away stacks to
> > slow large stacks, but if your willing to sacrafice NP's to slow an enemy,
> > why not.
> This was my original thinking, but a couple of players argued that it
> makes turns too hard to predict, and that it's unreasonable for a single
> kamikaze unit to be able to delay a huge killer stack for a day.
THat's a noble kamikazi. Throwing away 1 or 2 NP--remember the "NP are
more precious than anyhting" line? I think that not being able to delay
someone departing is a mistake. It exacerbates (seriously) the entire
problem with people being unable to flee. Now you can't flee, and you
can't delay someone.
FWIW, I think a noble (heroic fantasy, right?) ought to be able to set a
deadfal trap, block the road with a fallen tree, etc., etc., and cost a
A day for an NP thrown away seems like a viciously high price for a small
delay. And now, you can't even do that. I _REALLY_ think it is a mistake.
> > Why 6? This seems kind of low, especially since Mt. Olympus is already civ-7.
> 6 leaves a three province ripple effect, and some people already interpreted
> the rules as saying there was a cap at six.
> > I'm still kind of wary of this. I know SWEAR can be a "bad thing", but I
> > also see times when it is a "good thing".
> Agreed. There are definitely legitimate uses for SWEAR. Unfortunately
> it's too easy to abuse, even with restrictions in place.
> Rich Skrenta <firstname.lastname@example.org>