[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Main gauche (two weapon) attacks and adjDX
Chris, I see no ambiguity in the rules you quoted. I think you just missed
it. You wrote:
At 04:47 PM 8/7/04 -0700, Christopher Fuhrman wrote:
...
Again this implies -2 as a shield, -4 as weapon. But what about
SHIELD and WEAPON.
But look at the rule for option 2:
[rules]
... (2) On any turn he uses
it as a shield AND weapon, it still stops one hit from any
non-missile weapon. It also lets him make TWO attacks that turn
(against the same enemy); one with the main-gauche and one with the
other weapon. BOTH attacks are at DX -4. ...
[/rules]
Notice the part about it still stopping a hit. The option that is NOT
available is attacking with it but NOT stopping a hit. I assume you made
that one up.
...
Ok, so, using this rationale, I can agree that the -2 DX for shield
use goes to adjDX used for action orders (just as a large shield or
armor's adjustment would).
Yes. Although you could make a house rule to the contrary, since you don't
HAVE to use a knife in your left hand as anything, so your DX in that case
would be normal. When you have to announce this exactly, should be part of
the house rule.
...
In fact, since main-gauche use is omitted from this section, it would
seem to imply that the dex penalties are always included in adjDX
ordering.
It might seem to, until you realize that you have no idea what each figure
is going to do until it is their turn. It is a bit silly to have it be
their turn, and then say because they are doing something a little more
difficult than usual, that you have to remember than and work it into the
action sequence. Even I, lover of complex rules, would say that is too
complex and for dubious gain.
Standing behind a figure gives you +4 DX, which technically can allow
you to attack before someone else, right? I think the adjDX rules
tend to get very unrealistic in this regard. Does anyone play house
rules that clear this up?
This is a good example of how your interpretation makes no sense and is
unplayable. If difficulty adjustments for specific sub-actions affect the
sequence of actions, then suddenly you would have to ask all kinds of
hypothetical questions about what everyone might do, in order to determine
who goes first! Ugga might face someone's side, someone's rear, and
someone's front. So you'd have to ask him at the DX+4 point if he wanted to
back-stab, then again at the DX+2 point if he wanted to side-attack, then
at the DX+0 point if he wanted to front attack, then at the DX-2 point if
he wanted to do a called shot to the arm, then etc... for every character ...
NO! That's just a misinterpretation of the rules.
For now, anway, I'm coding the whole -4 DX adjustment as ordering
penalty in the simulator. Since I'm just hacking/slashing, and not
dealing with missle/thrown weapons, there'll never be anything but
one type of adjDX.
Wrong decision - only a few confused people play that way, and only until
they realize how silly it is.
It's not a big deal to change it one day if needed (adjDX for
firing/throwing attacks). Eventually, I am hoping to turn the code
into a gaming tool, with movement, counters, etc. I already have many
reusable classes from my (unreleased) Ogre implementation in Java.
Cool!
PvK
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"