[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) The year is 20XX...
No, it was made official by 1981 it is in the fifth edition of Melee page
11. It states "the figures last three hexes of movement must be in a s
traight line and without a facing change or the double damage bonus does
not apply."
This was done as I recall because a lot of people said that with a 5 foo
t run up you just can't generate the type of power to do double damage.
Again as I recall there was even some math that backed this up (ForceMass x acceleration), I do remember them relating it to a mounted charge.
And if you really think about it 5 feet is not enough space to generate
much power (that's about a step and half for most of us) you won't get u
p to speed, now in 15 feet you can almost get to max speed (almost 5 full
strides).
As for my two cents I just can't see a back up and lunge having any more
power than a normal attack. This makes spears far more effective than t
hey really were, unless they were massed.
Edward Kroeten
Farmers Agent
7100 Stevenson Blvd Suite 105
Fremont, CA 94538
Phone 510-579-0135
Fax 510-438-6875
Website: www.kroeteninsurance.com
------ Original Message ------
Received: 07:54 PM PDT, 04/15/2014
From: Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>
To: "tft@brainiac.com" <tft@brainiac.com>
Subject: Re: (TFT) The year is 20XX...
Test
________________________________
From: Erol K. Bayburt <Ero
lB1@aol.com>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:51 P
M
Subject: Re: (TFT) The year is 20XX...
I think we may be misun
derstanding each other: I'm asking where,
exactly, Metagaming published
"three hexes in a straight line" as an
official TFT rule.
If they d
idn't publish it anywhere as an official TFT rule, then it
isn't an offi
cial TFT rule but only Yet Another Proposed Optional Rule.
(Not that I
'd use it even if it were "official." But I like to keep
track of what t
he official rules are even when I don't use them.)
Erol K. Bayburt
E
rolB1@aol.com
On 4/15/2014 12:29 PM, David O. Miller wrote:
> Nothin
g written up, as I said just inferred from reading a lot about
> the subj
ect 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 total
ly agree with you about over-corrections. In my humble opinion
> trying t
o fix a perceived problem with the pole weapon rules by
> introducing mor
e rules is not in the spirit of the game. However
> people are free to al
ter any game to make it fit better with their,
> and their groups, playin
g style. I'm certainly not a rules lawyer in
> that regard! I too have ad
ded in a couple of small rule "tweaks" over
> the years.
>
> I'm sure
whatever solution you come up with, if applied consistently,
> will work
.
>
> If you'd like to try out the: back up one hex and "lunge" attack
back
> into your opponent, adding an additional die of damage if you hi
t
> tweak. It's worked great for our group for the past 15 years or
so.
>
> Good luck! David __________________________________________ Davi
d O.
> Miller www.meleewizards.com Miller Design/Illustration
> www.davidom
iller.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2014, at 12:56 PM, "Erol K
. Bayburt" <ErolB1@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I knew that a lot of ideas
for "fixing" the pole weapons were
>> thrown around after Steve Jackson l
eft Metagaming, but I didn't
>> think anything official 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
>> "flavor" of combat in my own c
ampaign.
>>
>> I am on the side that sees the pole weapon charge rules
as broken,
>> but I also think that most of the proposed changes are
>>
over-corrections, if one wants to stick close to the letter and
>> spiri
t of the original rules. And that includes the "three hexes in
>> a strai
ght line" requirement, official or not.
>>
>> Erol K. Bayburt ErolB1@ao
l.com
>>
>> On 4/15/2014 10:50 AM, David O. Miller wrote:
>>> Erol,
>>>
>>> Howard Thompson and team added that in after Steve Jackson had
>>> left the company. It's only in the very last addition of TFT a
nd,
>>> as far as I can tell, was added because of a lot of vocal
>>> dissati
sfaction concerning the pole weapon charge attack rules.
>>> Of course th
ose of us who don't think the rule is broken usually
>>> don't complain a
bout it. Therefore I think it was a simple case
>>> of the squeaky wheel
gets the oil. The other possible factor is
>>> that Thompson was trying t
o move away from Jackson's version of
>>> the rules and mold them more to
his own tastes. Me, I'll stick
>>> with the original designer's rules.
>>>
>>> Two quick things.1. I think a lot of people got hung up on the
>>> word "charge". Call it a one hex "lunge" attack and the rule
>>> s
uddenly just sounds better.
>>>
>>> 2. If you really want to nerf the t
wo top tiered pole weapons
>>> just add in an extra die damage rather tha
n double what's rolled.
>>> Keeps the lower pole weapons doing basically
double damage while
>>> lowering the bite of the two big ones.
>>>
>>
> My two cents, David __________________________________________
>>> Davi
d O. Miller www.meleewizards.com Miller Design/Illustration
>>> www.david
omiller.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 1
1:34 AM, "Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The r
ules for pole weapons and charge attacks are as big a
>>>> magnet for hou
se-rule changes as the rules for HTH combat.
>>>>
>>>> The TFT wiki has
under "Charge Attack" the note "Special case
>>>> for pole weapons (x2 d
amage, if last 3 hexes in a line)." Is
>>>> this an official rule from Me
tagaming, added late in TFT's
>>>> history? Or is it a house rule that so
mehow crept into what
>>>> should be a list of official, "by the book" ru
les?
>>>>
>>>> As a suggestion made with an eye to keeping the rule cha
nges
>>>> as simple and minimal as possible, I'll push forward:
>>>>
>>>> "A figure using a pole weapon in a charge attack situation do
es
>>>>
not get either double damage or the possible +2 DX bonus if he
>>>> and
his opponent were in adjacent hexes at any time during the
>>>> previous
turn."
>>>>
>>>> Erol K. Bayburt ErolB1@aol.com
>>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2
014 3:13 AM, Edmund Nelson wrote:
>>>>> ... And everybody uses spears to
absolute perfection. I
>>>>> really don't see how there is any counter at
all to spears
>>>>> without armor other than getting very lucky, the gen
eral rule
>>>>> in melee is be 1 Dexterity higher than them or 8 Dexterit
y
>>>>> lower and be invulernable to their attacks. unfortunately
>>>>>
spears have an amazing properties in being pole weapons, The
>>>>> user
can disengage from the slower enemy and instead of
>>>>> dealing many wea
ker shots they can deal one double damage
>>>>> attack every 2 turns rath
er than having 1 double damage
>>>>> attack followed by a string of weake
r ones. this makes most
>>>>> heavy armor characters weak to spears. o
ne 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 gr
eater.
>>>>> this provides us with the following configurations as
>>>>
> potential candidates to beat spearmen Cutless Small shield
>>>>> No arm
or- 14 Dexterity lets him hit spearmen turn 1 and
>>>>> survives on a
roll .less than 3, however still is very weak
>>>>> to just taking damage
and unfortunately just can't cut it
>>>>> Broadsword small shield Leathe
r armor 10 Dexterity vs 13,
>>>>> unfortunately you Still suffer from the
problem of losing to
>>>>> the initial charge quit 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 the amount you are favored
in
>>>>> the mid game does not make up for the disfavor early
>>>>>
>
>>>> The only candidate I find that might be a spear counter is
>>>>> Cut
lass with Chain and a large shield the strategy is to
>>>>> defend on the
turn of charge and then to counterattack on the
>>>>> retreat, though ju
st how good that is is hard to know because
>>>>> it is hard to simulate,
The best I can come up with is Charge
>>>>> attack turn (turn 1) Spearma
n has a 40% chance (rounded) of
>>>>> hitting the cutlass user If they hi
t 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 get a kill and not 10, also
note that
>>>>> there are a neat set of permutations that lead to kills,
they
>>>>> have about a 13% chance to instantly kill the cutlass user
>
>>>> every combat, and 2/6ths of the time deal significant damage
>>>>> a
nd 2/6ths of the time deal marginal damage (though 3+7
>>>>> and thu
s cated they hit 50% of the
>>>>> time but they go second, they also dea
l less damage overall,
>>>>> I'd give this matchup to the spearman for no
w until more data
>>>>> is gathered about spear vs armor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
.com. Unsubscribe by mailing to
>>>>> majordomo@brainiac.com with the mes
sage body "unsubscribe
>>>>> tft"
>>>>>
>>>> to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
>>>> Unsubscribe by ma
iling to majordomo@brainiac.com with the
>>>> message body "unsubscribe t
ft"
>>>
>>>
>>> tft@brainiac.com.
>>> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com w
ith the
>>> message body "unsubscribe tft"
>>>
>> t to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
>> Unsubscribe by ma
iling to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message
>> body "unsubscribe tft
"
>
>
> iniac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the me
ssage
> body "unsubscribe tft"
>
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"
This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this transmission may co
ntain confidential information and are intended solely for the addressee (s)
named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient, any use of, d
isclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on the contents of this e-mail
information is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender advising of
the error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the message and any
accompanying documents.
Farmers Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Farmers
Financial Solutions, LLC, reserve the right to monitor and review the conten
t of all e-mail communications and attachments sent or received by or from t
his address and to retain them in accordance with the applicable regulatory
requirements. Securities are offered through Farmers Financial Solutions, LL
C, 30801 Agoura Road, Building 1, Agoura Hills, California 91301. Member FIN
RA & SIPC.
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"