It seems, from pp. 118-119, that weapons of differing lengths are intended to introduce asymmetries in the conflict resolution matrix. Still, the wording has me scratching my head:
“Against short-ranged weapons, your attack action counts as a versus action (rather than independent) against Attack, and is independent against Maneuver.”
It is mainly the “counts as” that bothers me. The phrasing inclines me towards reading it as your attack roll hindering your opponent, who then has to subtract your successes from his roll, while your own attack roll remains independent. But I’m far from being entirely sure, hence this post.
So, let’s assume Alice has an Axe and Bob has a Bow. First action, Alice and Bob both Attack. Which is the correct resolution?
[ol]
[li]Alice - Versus (Normal vs. Missile); Bob - Independent (Attack vs. Attack).
[/li]If Alice rolls 3 successes and Bob rolls 2, Alice is left with a 1 point margin, but Bob keeps both successes.
[li]Alice - Independent (Attack vs. Attack); Bob - Versus (Missile vs. Normal)
[/li]If Alice rolls 3 successes and Bob rolls 2, Alice keeps all three successes and Bob fails.
[/ol]
If Alice Attacks while Bob Maneuvers, I am rather more confident that Alice remains a Versus roll (subtracting Bob’s Maneuver successes) while Bob’s become Independent.
In the first case, the longer weapon does have a rather massive advantage, which may be interpreted as simply being out of range of the opponent’s shorter weapon. The second case is less clear cut, the longer weapon has a harder time hitting an opponent (getting inside its range, or being a moving target vs. missile), but keeps the Maneuver advantage (e.g. keep the opponent away). That trade-off has to be more satisfactory from a design standpoint.
For what it’s worth, the “playing cards” on the wiki favors the second interpretation (Bob’s attack is Versus), but I haven’t seen it discussed on the forum.
So, which would it be? What is the intent? Did I fail English 101 somewhere?