Here's my take on things.The version your link points to is a 1981 version. The original version is copyright 1977.
If you have the 4th edition of the rules from 1980 it says "Fourth Edition edited by Guy McLimore, Jr and Howard Thompson" In that edition all of the changes were indicated in grey shading. These alterations were picked up in later editions.
Advanced TFT came out in 1980 as well, after SJ worked on it for a lengthly amount of time. That is the last edition that saw SJ's approval. HT did not tinker with these rules since there was only one printing of them and he was in a rush to get them done. It is well know that HT was not happy with Advanced TFT. As I mentioned HT did continue to play around with the rules in the Mirco versions of the game in later printings up until the last printing in 1981.
So, it depends on wether you like Steve Jackson's original rules or Howard Thompson's version of TFT. HT tinkered with the rules after he dropped his working relationship with SJ. He messed with the rules for a number of reasons unknown to all but him. It is well known, however, that he did not care for SJ, especially after Advanced TFT did not meet his expectations. Perhaps this was a way to put his mark on the rules and alter them the way he felt they should be played. In all honesty I prefer Steve Jackson's original, Advanced TFT version of the rules and consider that cannon. The more HT tinkered the further he moved away from the original vision of what defines TFT.
A good example of HT's tinkering is in the 3 hexes in a straight row to do a charge attack. I've always preferred the simpler move one and charge ruling of SJ.
So, it pretty much boils down to this. Who do you trust as the ultimate designer of this game?
David O. Miller On Mar 10, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Brad Long wrote:
Here is the version I speak of: http://bluwiki.com/go/Tft-meleeWhich is the exact same one I have in hard-copy that I purchased (in 1981). Although the web link above does not have page numbers you can find the details under the relevant sections.Page 10, under the section "ATTACKER'S ARMOUR, SHIELD, ETC." has Chainmail at -3 DX and Plate armour at -5 DX.Page 13, under "ARMOUR" has Chainmail at -4 DX and Plate armour at -6 DX.Page 20, "COMBAT EXAMPLE" uses an example that implicitly indicates Chainmail at -4 DX (since chainmail + large shield drops DX by 5).Page 22, "DX ADJUSTMENTS FOR YOUR ARMOUR AND SHIELD" has Chainmail at -3 DX and Plate armour at -5 DX.As mentioned, we play -3 & -5 for simplicity (then it's the same as hits/attack) and matches leather armour (-2DX/-2hpa)----- Original Message ----- From: "PvK" <pvk@oz.net> To: <tft@brainiac.com> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:38 AM Subject: Re: (TFT) Rule clarificationMust be a pretty old version of Melee to have chainmail at -4DX. The only TFT Plate I've ever seen at -5DX is Half Plate (Advanced Melee and ITL), which only stops 4 points per attack. In other words, having seen many many many sources of TFT armor values, standard chain and plate are -3DX and -6DX. I don't recall ever seeing -4DX or -5DX for those (except Fine Plate at -4DX, and I do think maybe I remember someone saying some old crusty original version of Melee had chainmail at -4DX, but that's just a curiosity to me, not a rival rule possibility, though surely some culture could have inferior chainmail-making techiques if the GM wanted it that way, --- brad@longbrothers.net wrote: From: "Brad Long" <brad@longbrothers.net> To: <tft@brainiac.com> Subject: Re: (TFT) Rule clarification Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:07:22 +1000Stating the obvious(?) but in the original Melee rules it mentions Plate -6 to DX and Chainmail -4 to DX and the combat example in the rules also uses this data, BUT at a later point in the rules it mentions Plate -5 to DX andChainmail -3 to DX. We have always played the second version.----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Long" <brad@longbrothers.net>To: <tft@brainiac.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:01 PM Subject: Re: (TFT) A Point of DamageThanks for the challenge David.My analysis of this is that Orc 1 CAN set vs. charge against Broadsword.At the beginning of the turn in question, Orc 1 is engaged, Broadsword isdisengaged. Now Orc 1 turns to face Broadsword."If a figure with a pole weapon stays in the same hex, with or without afacing change, on the turn an enemy figure charge attacks him ..." Broadsword, although he didn't move, went from disengaged to engagedduring the movement phase and intends to attack this round, and thereforeis counted as a "CHARGE AND ATTACK". Hence, Orc 1 can set vs. charge attack. Did I get it right? On another point - showing my ignorance - why did Broadsword need todisengage in the prior round if the figure he was engaged with died beforeBroadsword had his attack?----- Original Message ----- From: "David Michael Grouchy II" <david_michael_grouchy_ii@hotmail.com >To: "mailing list" <tft@brainiac.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:41 PM Subject: RE: (TFT) A Point of DamageWelcome Brad. Here is a link to General Test of Melee Knowledge Number I http://tft.brainiac.com/archive/0112/msg00073.html from all the way back in December of 2001. In case anyone else hasn't seen it. :) David Grouchy ===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body"unsubscribe tft"===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body"unsubscribe tft" ===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body"unsubscribe tft"===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com. Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body "unsubscribe tft"
===== Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com. Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body "unsubscribe tft"