From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:43:03 GMT

Chris Maxfield writes
>
> It's very simple: the character that loses initiative on the first turn of
> melee combat does not have their combat pool refreshed on their first
> action but instead has it refreshed on their second action (even if that
> second action is in the next turn) . Thereafter, pools refresh on every
> action as per normal.
>
> This means the two opponents start with full pools (starting anyone with
> less is almost always deadly for that character, as the initiator of this
> thread commented) but then grants an advantage to the initiative winner.
>
Um but if firearms become involved?

I have been wondering, what about banning people from adding combat
pool to skills until they have had an action in combat?
Therefore whoever wins the initative gets to add combat pool to the
attack while thier opponent does not. Ok the target may still use
full defence but. This avoids the problems affecting dice pool
refresh timing causes if a third person decides to interfer in the
melee (especially if its with a gun). Assuming the guy that lost the
initiative isn't wearing so much armour that the attacks going to
bounce off, the person that wins should now get a big advantage as
theres no more 'well i'm going second so pour my pool into melee
combat at low TN because it will refresh before my action'.

Still not perfect. You could always simply ban combat poolmfrom being
used against attacks made using 'melee combat' until the person has
had an action, it's not as if they are difficult to identify as the
'cannot use combat pool on both the skill roll and dodge' rule
already uses this identifier to track it's applicability.

comments?

Mark