Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6267959" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I saw this in play in the first play-test I was involved in, at a convention.I started calling it the &quot;Conga-Line of Doom&quot; .&nbsp; We'd form a battle line, with melee types in front and casters in the backfield.If there was any spot where an opponent could slip through, they did.&nbsp; All of them.&nbsp; Each one would dash in, hit a squishy type, then retreat the same way.&nbsp; Then the next opponent would do the same.&nbsp; The way Initiative works allowed each opponent to perform their complete action before another, acting on the same Initiative, got to start, so each could take an optimum path, be in, out and gone before the next acted.I questioned whether the conga-line was legal, and I was assured that it was not only legal, but intended to operate exactly as we were seeing it.It was so bad it made me walk away.&nbsp; I don't do that casually.Since then I've been told that this was not the intent, and that the rules had changed to prevent this abuse.So if the announcement is that the abuse has been re-licensed then I think my walk-away will remain in effect, permanently.&nbsp; It's not the specific maneuver, it's the mind set of the designers that it illustrates.&nbsp; So let the conga-line proceed without me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6267959, member: 6669384"] I saw this in play in the first play-test I was involved in, at a convention. I started calling it the "Conga-Line of Doom" . We'd form a battle line, with melee types in front and casters in the backfield. If there was any spot where an opponent could slip through, they did. All of them. Each one would dash in, hit a squishy type, then retreat the same way. Then the next opponent would do the same. The way Initiative works allowed each opponent to perform their complete action before another, acting on the same Initiative, got to start, so each could take an optimum path, be in, out and gone before the next acted. I questioned whether the conga-line was legal, and I was assured that it was not only legal, but intended to operate exactly as we were seeing it. It was so bad it made me walk away. I don't do that casually. Since then I've been told that this was not the intent, and that the rules had changed to prevent this abuse. So if the announcement is that the abuse has been re-licensed then I think my walk-away will remain in effect, permanently. It's not the specific maneuver, it's the mind set of the designers that it illustrates. So let the conga-line proceed without me. [/QUOTE]

Verification