[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(TFT) Re: TFT Digest V4 #295
> Do you use the "must charge 3 hexes to get a charge attack" rule?
Even that leads to gamey things like running back two hexes and forward
three.
Whenever I get around to running a game I'm planning to use: Charge damage
bonus occurs if the attacker and target started the turn at least three
hexes apart.
I'd like it if someone could tell me what's wrong with this:
For order:
1. Combat between characters who were engaged at the start of the turn
happens first. Engaged characters still use DX order.
2. "First attack" advantage happens in the first round, regardless of
whether it's a charge or not.
3. First attack advantage is in order of weapon length, so pole arms before
others and then by strength requirement of weapon, not by DX.
For damage:
1. Charge damage bonus is only given for spear-like weapons. So spear gets
x2, a halberd (which has spear- and axe-like bits) gets x1.5, naginata
(which doesn't have a point) gets x1 (and is 1+1 vice 1+2).
2. Charge damage bonus occurs if the attacker and target started the turn
at least three hexes apart.
3. No +2 for set vs. charge (it's a complicating rule and as far as I can
tell armies chose to meet at a charge anyway).
Has anyone tried something like this?
> 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.
Two thoughts:
1. Isn't this true anyway? The retreated opponent can step forward, it's
not a charge.
2. You need to hit them twice, see that's your problem. :-)
Cris - other tactics your simulator could try would be:
* when I have a polearm I choose to jab rather than charge.
* when I face a polearm I choose to defend in the first round.
Don't know if these would work well.
I checked my own simulator, which is pretty detailed but not as good as
Cris' and used some of the house rules above. It created dozens of warriors
and then repeatedly culled the one with the worst average score against
survivors. The last survivors, notionally the best, were spear, gladius,
broadsword, halberd ... I don't really understand how halberd does so badly
against swords, but I don't seem to have a bug.
-----
David
On 22 February 2013 01:08, TFT Digest <tft-owner@brainiac.com> wrote:
>
> TFT Digest Thursday, February 21 2013 Volume 04 : Number
> 295
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:34:05 -0800
> From: Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> Hi all,
> 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?
>
> (We've used that optional rule ever since it has
> been suggested.)
>
> 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.
>
> Warm regards, Rick.
>
>
> On Wed, 2013-20-02 at 11:11 +0000, Robert Ward wrote:
> > That's really interesting -- I'm surprised that spear doesn't come out
> > on top with the knock-down rules included.
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > 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 also -- does the simulator give first attack to charging
> > pole-weapons?
> > Rob
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 12:11 AM, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Robert Ward <rob@dolwen.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just curious... Does your model include effects of damage, esp
> > > > knock-down when suffering 8 pts or more? In our games the issue was
> > > > always how to knock opponents down before they could swing
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > The simulator takes into account the following:
> > >
> > > - Each bout is carried out until one or the other hero is no longer
> > > conscious (ST < 2), or both have broken their weapon.
> > > - If both heroes break their weapon, the bout is considered a draw
> > > (tie).
> > > - Automatic and critical hits (double, triple damage) as well as
> > > automatic and critical misses (dropped, broken weapons) are
> considered
> > > (with 3- and 4-die rolls).
> > > - Hero must take a turn to pick up a dropped weapon.
> > > - Hero has -2 penalty to DX for the current and next turn when he
> has
> > > taken 5 or more hits in the current round.
> > > - Hero has -3 penalty to DX for the remainder of the bout when he
> has
> > > been reduced to ST 3 or less.
> > > - Hero gets knocked down when he has taken 8 or more hits in the
> > > current
> > > round and must take a turn to stand up.
> > > - Hero will defend if he has an injury causing adjDX to go below 8,
> > > provided he has a readied weapon.
> > > - Heroes with a pole weapon do a charge attack (possible double
> > > damage)
> > > on first round.
> > =====
> > 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:58:38 -0500
> From: Cris Fuhrman <fuhrmanator@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:58:26 -0800
> From: Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:21:27 -0500
> From: Cris Fuhrman <fuhrmanator@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> Couldn't find that rule in my fifth edition copy. Got a ref?
>
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Rick Smith wrote:
>
> > The charging figure goes first is a basic Melee
> > rule.
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:15:20 -0800
> From: Jay Carlisle <maou.tsaou@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> WHAT HAPPENED?!?
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:20:09 -0800
> From: Jay Carlisle <maou.tsaou@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> Just a sec... saw Mr F... jumped the gun... ALMOST there Mr C lol...
> what's the sound-tag for THIS period? uhhhh.... "once I was alone, I
> never needed anyone?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D0zfB1l1x0
> Replace my fat-bearded-gamer-ass with that cuter one of corse...
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:03:46 +0000
> From: Robert Ward <rob@dolwen.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> I don't have a copy of Melee available, but I think you're right,
> "charging pole-weapons go first" was an Advanced Melee addition. Anyway,
> the rule is certainly clear in AM. Also spear damage in AM is 1+1, while
> in Melee I think it was 1+2.
>
> The "3-hex charge" variant doesn't appear in AM (or Melee Ib m 99.9999%
> sure).
>
> Mmmmemorrrrries....
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> > > > 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:05:26 +0000
> From: Robert Ward <rob@dolwen.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> I'm sort of allergic to Java, but might try to have a look -- I couldn't
> find it with a quick search of the usual terms, can you post a link?
> Rob
>
> > 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.
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:41:50 -0600
> From: raito@raito.com
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Best starting Melee character revisited - charges.
>
> I'm definitely allergic to Java, but then the guy who authored the Java
> spec said that Java had nothing to offer me.
>
> (And yeah, you really need to post a link. Saying it's on Google code is
> like saying it's on the internet. Or my company's internal doc site.)
>
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.com
>
> > I'm sort of allergic to Java, but might try to have a look -- I couldn't
> > find it with a quick search of the usual terms, can you post a link?
> > Rob
> >
> >> 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.
> > =====
> > 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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TFT Digest V4 #295
> *************************
>
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft-digest"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"