[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) 8 hits or more --> Duration of fall and cannon
Thanks for all who have replied to this so far.
I know that I've read about how SJ wrote most of the material in
AM/AW/INL so I guess I consider it cannon. SJ even published an errata
for AM/AW/INL so I know he had his hand in it's production. The game
master's screen and the codex I'm not so sure of. For the most part
AM/AW/INL and the microquest version(s) do not contradict each other
(the standing on movement or standing as an action being one example).
So I agree with Rick that whenever there is a question on how something
should work in the advanced rules I've always turned to the microquest
games to find the answer.
What I might be fishing for here is how many of us actually on this
list play TFT by the book? It seems that a lot of members have added so
many variables to the rules that many are not really playing the game
anymore. (I for one am guilty of this, but only in a small way. I only
have two, common house rules; one that splits ST for wizards into hits
and fatigue and one that gives an extra D6 for pole weapons in a charge
instead of double damage. And even then I've recently been thinking
about going back to the double damage rule.)
Well said, Rick. I agree there is no canon here, because TFT never
really got past the unstable "2.0" stage with its true visionary
still in control. I'm calling version 1 the Microgames.
Is this true? I know SJ thanks a lot of people who helped him out on
the advanced rules project but I believe he still had a lot of control
over the content. HT even says he was not that happy with what SJ
turned in but due to publishing deadlines he had to print what he had.
This disagreement was probably the beginning of the end between the two
of them.
Just for fun I would like to run an informal poll here. Please respond
to only one:
1. Our group plays TFT by the book with no alterations.
2. Our group plays TFT with only one or two (minor at best) house rules.
3. Our group plays TFT with several GM invented house rules.
4. Our group plays TFT in name only, the rules have been so altered
that you would barely recognize them.
My vote falls into number 2.
Bonus poll:
1. I believe the Fantasy Master's Screen and the Codex should be
considered part of the official cannon.
2. I do not believe the Fantasy Master's Screen and the Codex should be
considered part of the official cannon.
I'm voting for number 2.
--David O. Miller
Just for clarity I don't consider myself a rules lawyer so much as a
rules purist (or, yikes, a rules fundamentalist).
On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Christopher Fuhrman wrote:
--- Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
Anyway, there is a discrepancy in the rules, so my advice is
to forget cannon and pick what makes sense to you. If you
insist on cannon, then go with the microgame rules. That was
what SJ wrote, and I think the contradictions that arose after
that was poor rules writing by those condensing rules or
trying to fix a different rule not considering the question
you are puzzling over.
Well said, Rick. I agree there is no canon here, because TFT never
really got past the unstable "2.0" stage with its true visionary
still in control. I'm calling version 1 the Microgames.
As for the 2.0 (AM/AW/ITL) documents, there isn't even an index. Much
(if not all) of the documentation was laid out by hand in those days.
There were probably different people who worked on different parts of
different documents: someone wrote the combat example in AM with its
inconsistencies, put together the codex, the Fantasy Masters' Screen,
etc. Maybe SJ or HT did quality control at the end and tried to catch
all the mistakes and contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised that
they are there.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"