Re: (TFT) Making Defending more useful - Damage after armor is 1/3...

[Christopher Fuhrman <fuhrman8or@yahoo.com>]

Seems everyone is giving his/her 2cents (today a Canadian cent is worth more than a US cent!)



----- Original Message ----

> From: Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>

> I toss out the following rule for

> comment:

> 

> DEFENDING:

>   When a figure defends all attacks thru the 

> figure's front hexes must roll 4vsDX to hit

> instead of the normal 3vsDX.  In addition, 

> any hit that does succeed and which penetrates

> armor does 1/3 damage of the after armor damage

> round down - but a minimum of one point.



I think it's an improvement, and it's simple. 



The 1/3 damage seems arbitrary, but I guess it could be 1/2 or 1/4 or even some subtraction (like a shield), again with the 1 pt min.



Ok - some random, caffeine inspired blather. Maybe some of it will strike a chord:



Without getting too Gurpsy, wouldn't defending rules be more realistic by considering the relative difference of adjDX of the two parties? That is, a defender with an adjDX higher than the attacker should be able to have a better chance to defend. There's an implication that adjDX helps you defend, which doesn't seem to be included in the initial rules.



I used Google and found various house rules about defending/dodging, and in particular looked at http://tft.brainiac.com/homerule.html, which incorporates the defender/dodger's adjDX:



---------------



B. Defending and Dodging: 

         These rules replace the ITL rules for using 4D when attacking a defending or dodging character.   When a character elects to defend or dodge, his/her DX is subtracted from 8. The result is the penalty assigned to the attacking character's chance to hit (always at least a penalty of -1). Note that this penalty applies only to the chance to hit, not to the attack order. 



----------------



Here's a sort of combination with Rick's proposition, which takes into consideration relative adjDX:



When attacking a dodging/defending opponent, attacker still must roll 4D to his adjusted DX. 



However, the difference between the defending adjDX and the attacking adjDX is added to the roll:



e.g., defending adjDX = 18, attacking adjDX = 13, diff = 5, so add 5 to the 4D roll to hit.



If diff is negative, it can be limited (or not, have to play some scenarios to think about it).



It has implications about critical hits and dropped/broken weapon rules, since we're adding/subtracting to the to-hit roll. I haven't thought it all out, but it could be interesting, or just too complicated. Attacking a defender that has high adjDX may not be a good idea if you want to keep your weapon in your hand. Also, it could be technically impossible to critically hit a defending char whose adjDX is much greater. 



For those reasons, we can simplify and state that the 4D critical-hit/drop-break-weapon rolls apply to the initial roll and not the adjusted one.







      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"