<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=275524.msg13604298#msg13604298">Quote from: Faeli on 16-10-2017, 05:45:39</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">So... you're saying that, if my army can beat their army, I instead sacrifice them for the CHANCE to capture one guy, a chance I would get ANYWAY if I fought them straight up?  What would be the point?  Why would you EVER not just fight normally?<br/><br/>Heck, why do the rules say it is single combat if they really refer to a full-on army battle?<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>You're a group of bandits.  You cannot really have a stand up fight against a massive army outside of exceptional situations, i.e., defending a castle.  And even then it's obviously not all peachy, only being worth 1d2 a piece etc.<br/><br/>It's impossible for you to be captured and you can invoke the Difficult Escape Roll on someone when normally the only way for them to have to do that is a personal decision on their part (ante-ing 100% of their Units).<br/><br/>Additionally you have a wide range of places you can go interrupt and kidnap in.  Personally, I thought it was a good balance of risk\reward change that added something spicy to the early game.  It was certainly possible to have changed the way it functioned early on, but I showed it to you and asked if you thought it was alright--I did not mean to mis-represent what it was or what was happening, but this was how I'd envisioned it from the word go.  My apologies for failing to convey that.<br/><br/>As for being called single combat:<br/>Because combat used to be handled in terms of a series of one vs. one fights that spilled over into the total battle's outcome, with a weird assist system that gimped having an extra general in the fight.