Re: (TFT) chances of doing very little damage

[Cris Fuhrman <fuhrmanator@gmail.com>]

Dud hits (hits that make contact but don't do damage) on the continuum of
damage you discuss below could be modeled as misses in TFT, since they're
basically clumsy (lacking skill) hits. It doesn't mean a failed DX roll or
automatic miss doesn't "miss" - the form of the miss is not defined in the
abstraction.

The defending example was to demonstrate that an attacking player is not
necessarily "missing the tree" if he rolls a miss. It's not like a player
gets smaller (harder to hit) when defending (since it requires a weapon).
The defender is harder to damage in the first place. It's subtle, but I
think it works in the abstraction.

Another argument that might support failed DX rolls possibly making contact
is the example of breaking a weapon. Conceivably swinging and hitting
nothing (i.e. a really bad miss) wouldn't break a weapon. OK, maybe you
dropped it on the ground and it breaks, but it would seem unrealistic to me
to say that is how all weapons break during combat. Sometimes you hit the
tree improperly (not causing it any measurable damage), and your ax breaks!

Anyway, just my way to see details in the simple abstraction of TFT combat.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 00:55, Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net> wrote:

> True, but thats different than hitting a tree and doing less damage.
>
> Take it this way:
> I fight with my axe.
> I might hit. The chances of me 'hitting' (a hit that will actually cause
> some pain, at least to an unarmored human... at least for most weapons) are
> reduced by things like the enemy defending. Sure, I may hit his weapon, or
> shield, or maybe even his hand (if you view him grabbing my axe to prevent
> me from swinging it 'me hitting him'), but none of those hits are legitimate
> hits on the target that may cause damage.
> Finally, if I hit, there is a chance the hit was just slightly 'off', or
> just happened to skim him in such a way, or whatever, that it caused less
> damage. Or maybe I happened to barely get a major artery, and now he is
> really messed up. The damage varies, beyond a "did I do damage or not?" sort
> of way.
>
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 23:28, Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>  On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 22:29, PvK <pvk@oz.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> but other times it would just sort of bonk the wood and bounce off, and
>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>>> seemed to have a lot to do with the angle of attack, and require a
>>>>> fairly
>>>>> high level of precision to reliably do the expected damage and not "dud
>>>>> out".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that just be modeled by a roll that's above your DX (or 16+)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That shows you totally missing the tree.
>>>
>>>
>> Not sure I agree, but I'm guessing this horse has been beaten before on
>> tft@brainiac :)
>>
>> Let's think of 4-dice to-hit vs a defending opponent, who by the way needs
>> a
>> weapon to be able to defend. There are conceivably hits that make physical
>> contact (glancing off the weapon that's being used to defend), even if you
>> "miss". The point of defending is that it makes it harder to make an
>> attack
>> that does any damage. Dodging is another story (since it requires no
>> weapon).
>> =====
>> 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"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"