Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.

[Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>]

The charging figure goes first is a basic Melee
rule.

I'm not troubled about rolling randomly for 
effects like initiative.  You are already rolling
randomly for to hits, etc.  Also if you do each
match up between fighters a few times it will 
average out.

The main purpose or reason for doing this is that
it will show pole weapon users doing better than
if the special rules for them are not taken into
account.  Which is realistic.

Warm regards, Rick.

On Wed, 2013-20-02 at 12:58 -0500, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
> Hi Bob and Rick,
> 
> I answered both your questions in the text below:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
> 
> >   I've another question to add to the ones Rob asked.
> > Do you use the "must charge 3 hexes to get a charge
> > attack" rule?
> >   If you do, then if the pole weapon user retreats
> > his opponent, he only has a 50% chance to get a
> > second double damage charge.
> >
> 
> The simulator abstracts all of this. I assumed on the first round, any
> pole-weapon user will get a charge attack (it's like assuming the movement
> condition is true, but only for the first round). The current version
> doesn't handle movement (or initiative). There's another rule that says
> "set vs. charge" gives +2 DX, but I don't use it since it requires deciding
> who is charging and who isn't. It seems unfair to decide that randomly, so
> I just left it out.
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 2013-20-02 at 11:11 +0000, Robert Ward wrote:
> > > It might be interesting to add two items of 'behavioral inventory' to
> > > your simulator
> > > 1. defend against charge attack yes/no
> > > 2. (for pole weapon users) disengage after attack (so as to get a charge
> > > attack next round)
> >
> 
> Great ideas - I'll put them on the feature list, and get to them when I
> have time/motivation. FYI, the source code is on Google Code so anyone who
> can code in Java can add these or any other features.
> 
> 
> > > Also -- again relevant for pole weapons -- might be the retreat rules.
> > > So if a pole weapon user hits an opponent but takes no damage, he should
> > > retreat his opponent for a charge attack next time. In a one-on-one
> > > battle (pole weapon vs no) this must be optimal strategy.
> >
> 
> Another good point. Retreat is interesting in that context, but also
> because the rule says figures fall if they have no place to go.
> 
> I don't like random decisions for the spatial part (is a figure blocked),
> so I thought about a model that's realistic (fair) yet simple. What about a
> one-by-eight hex arena (think tunnel with no exits)? It is long enough to
> allow both figures to meet in the middle after having made charge attacks
> moving forward 3 hexes each (satisfying the constraints of the pole charge
> for double damage). In this model:
> 
> 1) Retreating a figure moves it back a hex (the only direction it can go).
> If it's at the end of the line, then it will fall after another retreat.
> There might be some instances where this makes a difference, but
> intuitively it seems not.
> 
> 2) If a pole figure has at least three hexes behind him, he can potentially
> re-charge after disengaging for double damage. However, if he has been
> forced back at least one hex, it wouldn't be possible.
> 
> Is it worth it to code this model? Will it change the results much? Figures
> who get forced back consistently are either a) low adjDX (they don't hit
> often) or b) have weapons that don't pierce the armor of their foes. There
> could be some match-ups where it matters.
> 
> I would be inclined to implement first the behavior of disengage +
> re-charge (assuming the 3-hex rule is still true) and see if it makes a big
> difference in the rankings of figures. If so, then the more complex tunnel
> model could be interesting.
> 
> 
> > > Another also -- does the simulator give first attack to charging
> > > pole-weapons?
> >
> 
> Isn't that an Advanced Melee rule? I was trying to keep the simulator
> old-school. However, using check-boxes for behavioral options would allow
> this to be done.
> =====
> 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"