- 10,500
- 11,566
Something I heard frequently is that a character starving or dying of old age mid battle is no victory condition, but instead counts as inconclusive.
That was never really decided upon and the believe might come from the fact that the SBA lists killing the opponent as victory condition.
So we should clarify that.
Proposition: Instead of "Killing the opponent" the victory condition in the SBA should be clarified to read "Death of the opponent".
There are multiple reasons for that:
First, if the opponent dying on its own is inconclusive, because you didn't kill him, that would produce some very stupid way to avoid losses.
E.g. if our dear Thunder McQuee commits suicide and you survive that, you have won. Nobody would think it's inconclusive because you didn't kill him.
Or if a character just trips and falls of a cliff mid battle, dying by accident, that would also not be inconclusive, right?
Or if the Authority just dies due to the wind damaging him, that's no inconclusive either, right?
Likewise it would strange for an old man to avoid a loss from a spontanous heart attack...
A reason more in the direction of starving & dying of old age in particular is that these ways of winning battles are actually relevant.
Immortality Type 1 and Self-Sustenance Type 2 are abilities whichs (almost) sole purpose is to avoid loosing by these means.
There are even characters that abuse that.
Knoche is a good example for that. It is stated to have so much HP that an otherwise equal opponent would starve before he can defeat it.
Kumoko is also using a war of attrition tactic, which she can continue for many many years, due to her god physiology. (Considering that some immortal characters in that verse literally just wait around for their power to increase, instead of actually doing anything productive to reach their goal, the waiting game is strong here)
In any case, point is that some characters have the possibility of natural death as part of their strategies.
In general I just see no reason why we would take away a characters advantage of having a longer timespan. If we can tell with certainty which character dies first after a 70 year stalemate, why count it as inconclusive?
What do you think, everyone?
That was never really decided upon and the believe might come from the fact that the SBA lists killing the opponent as victory condition.
So we should clarify that.
Proposition: Instead of "Killing the opponent" the victory condition in the SBA should be clarified to read "Death of the opponent".
There are multiple reasons for that:
First, if the opponent dying on its own is inconclusive, because you didn't kill him, that would produce some very stupid way to avoid losses.
E.g. if our dear Thunder McQuee commits suicide and you survive that, you have won. Nobody would think it's inconclusive because you didn't kill him.
Or if a character just trips and falls of a cliff mid battle, dying by accident, that would also not be inconclusive, right?
Or if the Authority just dies due to the wind damaging him, that's no inconclusive either, right?
Likewise it would strange for an old man to avoid a loss from a spontanous heart attack...
A reason more in the direction of starving & dying of old age in particular is that these ways of winning battles are actually relevant.
Immortality Type 1 and Self-Sustenance Type 2 are abilities whichs (almost) sole purpose is to avoid loosing by these means.
There are even characters that abuse that.
Knoche is a good example for that. It is stated to have so much HP that an otherwise equal opponent would starve before he can defeat it.
Kumoko is also using a war of attrition tactic, which she can continue for many many years, due to her god physiology. (Considering that some immortal characters in that verse literally just wait around for their power to increase, instead of actually doing anything productive to reach their goal, the waiting game is strong here)
In any case, point is that some characters have the possibility of natural death as part of their strategies.
In general I just see no reason why we would take away a characters advantage of having a longer timespan. If we can tell with certainty which character dies first after a 70 year stalemate, why count it as inconclusive?
What do you think, everyone?
