Re: (TFT) The year is 20XX...

[Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>]

I actually think it was originally posted as an "optional rule" in Interpla
y, with the intent of making it official in the "2nd edition" that was supp
osed to be published sometime in 1982 or 83.  I THINK it was in Interplay
 number 4, but I could be wrong about that and it could be like, number 6. 
 The guy in charge of re-writing the rules for Second Edition stated that
 it was his intent to publish proposed rules changes as optional rules to s
eek player feedback before making them official.  I never heard if they g
ot any feedback or not.  By this stage of the game, Metagaming was even l
ess communicative than they had been back in the Spacegamer days....  The
y did something similar with proposed Priest/Theologian rules, but DID get 
some blowback on those as highly unbalanced (and promised they were coming 
out with a more developed priestly function supplement at some point -- thi
s despite Howard Thompson's raging atheism and opposition to any such
 idea in the original game).


________________________________
 Fr
om: Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB1@aol.com>
To: tft@brainiac.com 
Sent: Tuesda
y, April 15, 2014 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: (TFT) The year is 20XX...
 


I think we may be misunderstanding each other: I'm asking where, 
exac
tly, Metagaming published "three hexes in a straight line" as an 
officia
l TFT rule.

If they didn't publish it anywhere as an official TFT rule
, then it 
isn't an official TFT rule but only Yet Another Proposed Optio
nal Rule.

(Not that I'd use it even if it were "official." But I like 
to keep 
track of what the official rules are even when I don't use them.
)

Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com

On 4/15/2014 12:29 PM, David O
. Miller wrote:
> Nothing written up, as I said just inferred from readin
g a lot about
> the subject from a variety of sources. I wasn't there so 
I don't know
> for sure but I think my conclusions are probably close to 
the truth.
>
> I totally agree with you about over-corrections. In my h
umble opinion
> trying to fix a perceived problem with the pole weapon ru
les by
> introducing more rules is not in the spirit of the game. However

> people are free to alter any game to make it fit better with their,

> and their groups, playing style. I'm certainly not a rules lawyer in
> 
that regard! I too have added in a couple of small rule "tweaks" over
> t
he years.
>
> I'm sure whatever solution you come up with, if applied c
onsistently,
> will work.
>
> If you'd like to try out the: back up o
ne hex and "lunge" attack back
> into your opponent, adding an additional
 die of damage if you hit
> tweak. It's worked great for our group for th
e past 15 years or so.
>
> Good luck! David ___________________________
_______________ David O.
> Miller www.meleewizards.com Miller Design/Illu
stration
> www.davidomiller.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 15, 20
14, at 12:56 PM, "Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I k
new that a lot of ideas for "fixing" the pole weapons were
>> thrown arou
nd after Steve Jackson left Metagaming, but I didn't
>> think anything of
ficial had been settled on. Where was this written
>> up? Interplay?
>>

>> My own house rules do include something like your two suggestions,

>> but that's because I have deliberately set out to change the
>> "flavo
r" of combat in my own campaign.
>>
>> I am on the side that sees the p
ole weapon charge rules as broken,
>> but I also think that most of the p
roposed changes are
>> over-corrections, if one wants to stick close to t
he letter and
>> spirit of the original rules. And that includes the "thr
ee hexes in
>> a straight line" requirement, official or not.
>>
>> E
rol K. Bayburt ErolB1@aol.com
>>
>> On 4/15/2014 10:50 AM, David O. Mil
ler wrote:
>>> Erol,
>>>
>>> Howard Thompson and team added that in a
fter Steve Jackson had
>>> left the company. It's only in the very last a
ddition of TFT and,
>>> as far as I can tell, was added because of a lot 
of vocal
>>> dissatisfaction concerning the pole weapon charge attack rul
es.
>>> Of course those of us who don't think the rule is broken usually

>>> don't complain about it. Therefore I think it was a simple case
>>
> of the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The other possible factor is
>>> tha
t Thompson was trying to move away from Jackson's version of
>>> the rule
s and mold them more to his own tastes. Me, I'll stick
>>> with the origi
nal designer's rules.
>>>
>>> Two quick things.1. I think a lot of peop
le got hung up on the
>>> word "charge". Call it a one hex "lunge" attack
 and the rule
>>> suddenly just sounds better.
>>>
>>> 2. If you real
ly want to nerf the two top tiered pole weapons
>>> just add in an extra 
die damage rather than double what's rolled.
>>> Keeps the lower pole wea
pons doing basically double damage while
>>> lowering the bite of the two
 big ones.
>>>
>>> My two cents, David ________________________________
__________
>>> David O. Miller www.meleewizards.com Miller Design/Illustr
ation
>>> www.davidomiller.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:34 AM, "Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@aol.com>
>>> wrot
e:
>>>
>>>> The rules for pole weapons and charge attacks are as big a

>>>> magnet for house-rule changes as the rules for HTH combat.
>>>>

>>>> The TFT wiki has under "Charge Attack" the note "Special case
>>>
> for pole weapons (x2 damage, if last 3 hexes in a line)." Is
>>>> this 
an official rule from Metagaming, added late in TFT's
>>>> history? Or is
 it a house rule that somehow crept into what
>>>> should be a list of of
ficial, "by the book" rules?
>>>>
>>>> As a suggestion made with an eye
 to keeping the rule changes
>>>> as simple and minimal as possible, I'll
 push forward:
>>>>
>>>> "A figure using a pole weapon in a charge atta
ck situation does
>>>> not get either double damage or the possible +2 DX
 bonus if he
>>>> and his opponent were in adjacent hexes at any time dur
ing the
>>>> previous turn."
>>>>
>>>> Erol K. Bayburt ErolB1@aol.com

>>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2014 3:13 AM, Edmund Nelson wrote:
>>>>> ... And e
verybody uses spears to absolute perfection. I
>>>>> really don't see how
 there is any counter at all to spears
>>>>> without armor other than get
ting very lucky, the general rule
>>>>> in melee is be 1 Dexterity higher
 than them or 8 Dexterity
>>>>> lower and be invulernable to their attack
s. unfortunately
>>>>> spears have an amazing properties in being pole we
apons, The
>>>>> user can disengage from the slower enemy and instead of

>>>>> dealing many weaker shots they can deal one double damage
>>>>> 
attack every 2 turns rather than having 1 double damage
>>>>> attack foll
owed by a string of weaker ones. this makes most
>>>>> heavy armor charac
ters weak to spears.  one needs to have an
>>>>> odd amount of armor to
 beat spears reasonably, so they avoid
>>>>> getting knocked down by the 
spearman on rolls 2 or greater.
>>>>> this provides us with the following
 configurations as
>>>>> potential candidates to beat spearmen Cutless Sm
all shield
>>>>> No armor- 14 Dexterity lets him  hit spearmen turn 1 a
nd
>>>>> survives on a roll .less than 3, however still is very weak
>>
>>> to just taking damage and unfortunately just can't cut it
>>>>> Broad
sword small shield Leather armor 10 Dexterity vs 13,
>>>>> unfortunately 
you Still suffer from the problem of losing to
>>>>> the initial charge q
uit often, sure spearmen hit the initial
>>>>> charge a little less than 
50% of the time, but when they do
>>>>> you die 2/3rds of the time, so th
e amount you are favored in
>>>>> the mid game does not make up for the d
isfavor early
>>>>>
>>>>> The only candidate I find that might be a spe
ar counter is
>>>>> Cutlass with Chain and a large shield the strategy is
 to
>>>>> defend on the turn of charge and then to counterattack on the

>>>>> retreat, though just how good that is is hard to know because
>>
>>> it is hard to simulate, The best I can come up with is Charge
>>>>> a
ttack turn (turn 1) Spearman has a 40% chance (rounded) of
>>>>> hitting 
the cutlass user If they hit they do 1 1/6 times 3
>>>>> 1/6 5 1/6 7 1/6 
Instant kill 2/6 Note that the spearman needs
>>>>> to deal 9 damage to g
et a kill and not 10, also note that
>>>>> there are a neat set of permut
ations that lead to kills, they
>>>>> have about a 13% chance to instantl
y kill the cutlass user
>>>>> every combat, and 2/6ths of the time deal s
ignificant damage
>>>>> and 2/6ths of the time deal marginal damage (thou
gh 3+7
>>>>> and thus cutlass user is more complicated  they hit 50% of the
>>>>> time but th
ey go second, they also deal less damage overall,
>>>>> I'd give this mat
chup to the spearman for now until more data
>>>>> is gathered about spea
r vs armor.
>>>>>
>>>>> ing to
>>>>> tft@brainiac.com. Unsubscribe by mailing to
>>>>> majordom
o@brainiac.com with the message body "unsubscribe
>>>>> tft"

>>>>>

>>>> com.
>>>> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the
>>>
> message body "unsubscribe tft"
>>>
>>>
>>> the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
>>> Unsubscribe by mailin
g to majordomo@brainiac.com with the
>>> message body "unsubscribe tft"

>>>
>> iac.com.
>> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the mes
sage
>> body "unsubscribe tft"
>
>
> tire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to maj
ordomo@brainiac.com with the message
> body "unsubscribe tft"
>
subscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"uns
ubscribe 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"