[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Death Test 1, take 4: SURVIVED!
well, isn't the extra damage a bonus for getting the ideal situation? A
more extreme example is a knight using a couched lance. Obviously has more
reach and power in its ideal circumstance. But if he's standing there and
we jump him, it's just a stick that's too long. He'd drop it and draw his
sword, right? In the copy of Melee I downloaded and printed from this site,
the halberd is a pretty nasty weapon as it is. The polearm rules give it,
the spear, the javelin a bonus with momentum, a combo of 2-handed force and
running weight. Still, 1d6+2 for a spear isn't anything to sneeze at,
unless you're fighting a fully armored knight...then you need the momentum.
I haven't played out all the possible combos, and I've only played with this
one edition. All weapons have a time and place where they are useful, even
more primitive weapons like the wooden swords with stone blades used by
Amerindians. It's when the opponent suddely changes tactics, armor or both
that you revisit your weapon.
-----Original Message-----
From: David O. Miller
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:55 PM
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: Re: (TFT) Death Test 1, take 4: SURVIVED!
Well, the 3-hex charge rule is not in there. Not in any version that
Steve Jackson wrote or approved at least. It was added in a later
edition by Howard Thompson based on a perceived problem /
interpretation of the rules by readers of InterPlay magazine. Or by
Howard Thompson.
This goes back to the discussion of which version do you believe to be
canon. I happen to go with the original designers version, that's all.
Never trusted what HT put in.
I understand about putting your weight behind the strike. I have no
problem with a pole weapon running towards a foe causing extra damage.
I just fail to see why there needs to be a rule that changes the
original and says that now you "have" to, and ditches the move one and
charge rule.
I still see it as counting the strength you put behind it as well,
added to any momentum. To me a one hex charge is a lunge forward, hit,
and then a push to ram the weapon home. This causes the extra,
impaling damage. The game mechanic is elegant. It accounts for the
extra impaling damage, in either a run towards, or a step and thrust
into, without adding complexity. Either way you are moving towards
your opponent. I just fail to see why you have to suddenly penalize
the pole weapon user and say he now has to back up and then run in to
gain extra damage.
David O. Miller
www.meleewizards.com
On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:14 PM, gem6868 wrote:
I'm not putting in the 3-hex charge rule, it's already there.
And the inspiration behind it is clearly that you get the double- damage
because the charger - or you - are adding significant amounts of momentum
to your impaling damage. Check out Newton's 3rd law (I think it's the
third) and you'll see there's a big difference btw you standing there
with your weight behind a weapon, and you charging with you weight behind
your weapon.
Frankly, if we stood in you yard, you'd never get a chance to impale me,
I'd be way to fast for you and your cumbersome weapon. Of course, I
wouldn't be a threat to you either, I'd just run around and the biggest
danger is that I'd laugh to hard and lose some agility. Now a slashing
weapon...
:)
-----Original Message----- From: David O. Miller
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:32 PM
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: Re: (TFT) Death Test 1, take 4: SURVIVED!
On Oct 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, gem6868 wrote:
However, I also subscribe to the rules interpretation that says if
there isn't a successful charge (3 straight hexes) or the character
isn't Charged, then the polearm advantage doesn't come into effect.
Why not? I can go out in the back yard with a thick pointy stick,
stand fairly close to an enemy, and putting all my weight behind it on
that tiny point do a massive amount of damage to a person as I run
them clean through and keep pushing really hard. It's called impaling
damage and I'm sure it hurts like hell. I've always thought that the
unfortunate choice of the term "charge attack" narrows a persons
interpretation of what the rule is attempting to cover way too much,
which is really being impaled. I don't need to run 10 or 15 feet
towards a person to put my weight behind such an attack. All of my
weight and strength is centered on a small point that has a better
chance of puncturing armor than an edged or club like weapon does and
momentum, at least to me, really doesn't add that much. In fact it
might even make it harder to hit someone.
This is always an interesting subject for me every time it comes up.
There is always a perceived problem with the rules that centers on the
word "charge". Put in the three hex charge rule and you change the
tactics of the original advanced game too much for my liking.
David O. Miller
www.meleewizards.com
=====
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"
__________________________________________
David O. Miller
Miller Design/Illustration
www.davidomiller.com
Network Diagram Solutions
www.diagramsolutions.com
davidomiller@verizon.net
East Northport, NY 11731
(631) 266-6875
=====
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"