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"