Re: (TFT) Re: engagement

["Craig W. Barber" <craigwbar@comcast.net>]

Right.  This seems to be one of the big divides between TFT and GURPS: higher
MA and engagement limits.

Tough.  Maybe the right solution is indeed to allow "run pasts" with a free
wild swing from those who were run past.

BTW, I used to allow a figure to "shift" one hex sideways even if this took
them out of engagement with someone.  So if "A" is surrounded by 5 goblins, he
can shift into the one empty space, even though this means he broke engagement
with three goblins "for free".  Look at it this way: when he's down to one
last opponent, he still must either defeat the opponent or use the "disengage"
option.  Adds a tiny bit of fluidity to the game.  I should probably add that
to the list of simplifying rules I'm compiling.

Craig B


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Peter von Kleinsmid
  To: tft@brainiac.com
  Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:06 PM
  Subject: Re: (TFT) Re: engagement


  Yes, one weak spot compared to GURPS is that TFT MA is twice what it is in
  GURPS, so if someone does survive a round, they could turn and run without
  getting hit again (if they have enough MA). You'll notice that if MA is
  halved, then even an unarmored person can't turn and flee and get out of
  range from a standing facing foe in one turn. I guess you could change the
  movement costs for turning, or turning while engaged, or halve everyone's
  MA. Or have the "final strike" rule you suggested...

  Or, just not care, because it's not like someone can avoid getting swung
  at, even with high DX and high MA. That is, I'm not sure if you already
  realized this or not, but having figures move and attack before another
  figure moves (and sticking with alternating turns), already ensures the
  "right to counterattack".

  Example: If Dextrous Dan moves first and runs up and attacks Slow Sam, and
  Sam survives until his time to act, Sam then gets to attack Dan.

  This will be true as long as no one takes Sam out of action before Sam
  acts, just like in TFT, especially if actions all must take place after the
  figure's movement is complete. Though even that wouldn't necessarily have
  to be a rule either.

  PvK


  At 06:11 PM 11/20/06 -0700, you wrote:
  >Right, I see where you're going.
  >
  >As I see it, you'd want some sort of "final strike" option if a figure
with
  >higher DX moves away and the lower DX figure doesn't want to follow.  That
is,
  >as TFT stands, the lower DX figure *eventually* gets to strike back at the
  >higher DX figure, assuming that he lives that long.   Problem: this means
that
  >when the higher DX figure backs out of melee to race across the map, he has
to
  >allow a bunch of lower DX figures who had him ("engaged") to go first.
  >Possibly a DX penalty for the lower DX figures, since they don't have a
full
  >turn to look for an opening on the swing?
  >
  >OTOH, your rule set would in fact allow the "mad weasel" defense we
discussed
  >previously, so maybe the "final strike" option is a bad idea.
  >
  >Hmm....
  >
  >Craig #B
  =====
  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"