[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (TFT) Howard Thompson versus Steve Jackson

Why so much Howard Thompson hate? If a rule is a good rule, who cares who it came from? 

It's pretty clear to me that Steve Jackson did not properly playtest TFT. Or, if he did, that he did not adequately listen to the feedback. In my opinion, that automatically disqualifies him for the pedastal most people on this list place him on. 

Melee/Wizard/TFT are my favorite muscle-powered age of warfare miniature skirmish rules. Sadly, every version has a hole in it that is easily exploitable and skews what it is trying to model. If everyone agrees not to exploit that hole, it works great. But if anyone starts trying to work the system, it has to be house ruled or the game falls apart. That saddens me because I don't feel I can ever just put a copy of the rules on the table and say "we're playing this", without qualifications. 

Why does that matter? Because house rules are subjective. Just look at the current debate about the historical accuracy of the dominance of pole weapons. I think they dominated. Others are equally adament that they didn't. How could we possibly agree on a house rule to address pole weapons? We have opposite points of view on what the model should try and simulate. So all we can fall back on is the rules as written. And if those rules have an imbalance, the game falls apart and we have to move on to (shudder) Warhammer or something.

--- On Thu, 10/6/11, David O. Miller <davidomiller@verizon.net> wrote:

> From: David O. Miller <davidomiller@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Death Test 1, take 4: SURVIVED!
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2011, 10:55 AM
> 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"