It was my understanding that 'touch range' could count as the range of an extended weapon. A non-combatant may not be able to be hit with a longer weapon, but the added reach is still there. Of course, if the non-com is ducking and diving to avoid touching distance then that's pretty Rule 7, not to mention entirely against the purpose of his/her non-combatant status.
However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!
You're right, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the ref's first priority is to the safety of the non-combatant and then to the enjoyment of everyone playing the system. He needs to view the decision for an objective perspective, to maintain fairness for the majority of the player base.
However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!
You're right, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the ref's first priority is to the safety of the non-combatant and then to the enjoyment of everyone playing the system. He needs to view the decision for an objective perspective, to maintain fairness for the majority of the player base.
Reply
Leave a comment