(TFT) Re: TFT Digest V4 #408

[David Bofinger <bofinger.david@gmail.com>]

> Yikes! Surely you're just reinventing GURPS weapon rules

No, I don't think so. Don't know GURPS well but weapons still had minimum
strength requirements, right?

> when someone advances to ST 12, they don't have to stop using the gladius
.

No, they don't *have* to. But anyone who doesn't switch to a broadsword is
sacrificing effectiveness for style.

Realistically: If I get stabbed by a ST 11 guy with a short sword, that
hurts. If I get stabbed with a short sword by someone more imposing, like
Uhtraed of Bebbanburg or Titus Pollo, that hurts a lot more. I'd like to
see that represented.

> the real issue for me is not that a sword pierces and an ax slashes.

Swords pierce (gladius), cut (arming sword) or slash (scimitar). Axes
pretty much just cut.

> It's based on cost and convention. Historically swords were EXPENSIVE

Usually irrelevant to PCs after their first few adventures. A PC will pay a
fair bit for a combat edge.

> long bow arrows should be a significant expense too

Agreed. Arrows cost more and bows cost less than RPGs think.

> Naginata, etc. These are highly specialized weapons from fairly late era
societies.

No, not really. Naginata was a staple weapon in Japan through at least C13
to C16, then I think it became a popular female weapon later.

> If you're gaming in Conan era settings they should be unavailable unless
someone has a very good back story.

Cidri isn't an ancient setting. The hard technology is renaissance rather
than mediaeval or dark ages. If you add to that magic technology and the
occasional fact remembered from past contact with space-faring
civilisations (starting with the germ theory of disease and ending who
knows where) then you have something much more advanced than the typical
fantasy RPG.

Naginata just shouldn't be so good. My house rule is 1+1, and no doubling
in a charge. (They still get to hit first in a charge.) This is because
most naginata blades bend over at the end so they can't thrust, they are
specialised for slashing rather than stabbing.

Realistically, if naginata were that good everybody would copy them and
they wouldn't be exotic for long.

> Though I must say that using a battle axe to parry seems a stretch.

People used to parry with all sorts of awkward-looking things: pollaxes,
for instance. Expert warriors seem to be able to make anything into a
defensive tool. I guess when you know that tomorrow a blood-crazed hooligan
will try to chop you in half it concentrates the mind wonderfully.

> Sometimes you use a shield to slide the blow aside rather than just
absorb the damage.

IIUC you absolutely do that with a buckler and do it less the bigger the
shield gets.

---
David


On 12 February 2015 at 05:18, TFT Digest <tft-owner@brainiac.com> wrote:

>
> TFT Digest        Wednesday, February 11 2015        Volume 04 : Number 4
08
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:27:04 -0800
> From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> Hi David,
>   In my campaign, I've added a lot of weapons and changed some of
> the existing ones.  The big change, is that now all impaling weapons
> do Xd–Y damage, where as cutting and crushing weapons do Xd+Y.
>
>   Thus, I very naturally capture the idea that an impaling weapon might
> do a tonne of damage, or very little.
>
>   Nice work,
>
>   Warm regards, Rick.
>
>
> On 2015-02-10, at 4:40 AM, David Bofinger wrote:
>
> > The TFT (i.e. Melee) weapon system is at least simple but it has a few
> > issues. I planned to create a small table of generic weapons (sword, ax
e,
> > spear, etc.) on one axis and ST on the other. Then Roman soldiers could
> > carry short swords without being inefficient whether they were ST 11 or
> > not, etc..
> >
> > I may have got a bit carried away.
> >
> > The output of the program is an HTML file
> >
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezn3zo741cp0te1/weapons_short_integer.html?dl
> > and a longer list including weapons I haven't figured out yet:
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/gy2akd3sj32qmts/weapons_long_integer.html?dl
> > There's also commentary attached.
> >
> > Any comments gratefully accepted, including anything that looks stupid 
or
> > how your favourite weapon is missing.
> >
> > ---
> > David
> >
> > > > 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:31:19 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Teagan Harper <harperteagan@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> Yikes! Surely you're just reinventing GURPS weapon rules (or your
> variations -- I have not read all the details) One of the great things
> about TFT is simplicity.
>
> Just a quick set of comments:
> Surely part of basic training for an army would be physical exercise for
> the troops to get them all to be strong enough to wield their basic
> weapons. So I have no issue with requiring the Roman Legionnaires to be m
in
> ST 11 to use the gladius effectively. If someone less than ST 11 picked o
ne
> up, they would be at an AdjDX penalty --not incapable of using it.
> Similarly when someone advances to ST 12, they don't have to stop using t
he
> gladius. Arguably you could give them an AdjDX bonus for being stronger
> than needed, but I think it just adds unnecessary book keeping.
> I agree about the interchangeability of weapons issue. But the real issue
> for me is not that a sword pierces and an ax slashes. It's based on cost
> and convention. Historically swords were EXPENSIVE and were a mark of upp
er
> ranks (gladius carrying Romans being an exception, perhaps -- but the cos
t
> of equipping a legion was a major reason only the Romans did it). Axes an
d
> spears are much cheaper to make and easier to learn how to use.I think th
at
> swords should cost much more than other weapons -- and long bow arrows
> should be a significant expense too -- and probably have some sort of
> penalty for badly made.
> Naginata, etc. These are highly specialized weapons from fairly late era
> societies. If you're gaming in Conan era settings they should be
> unavailable unless someone has a very good back story. (I am a firm
> believer in paying for unusual talents or gear with excellent back storie
s.)
> Defense: I do think that a Parry talent would be appropriate (and should
> be built in to Fencing). Though I must say that using a battle axe to par
ry
> seems a stretch. IQ and DX minimums should apply. I could see it being us
ed
> with blade weapons and spears and quarterstaffs, for instance. You could
> wrap the Shield talent into it -- or expand shield to include it. Sometim
es
> you use a shield to slide the blow aside rather than just absorb the dama
ge.
> Just some casual thoughts, David. But big time kudos on making the effort
> to write this all up and share.
>
> T
>
>
>      From: David Bofinger <bofinger.david@gmail.com>
>  To: tft@brainiac.com
>  Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:40 AM
>  Subject: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> The TFT (i.e. Melee) weapon system is at least simple but it has a few
> issues. I planned to create a small table of generic weapons (sword, axe,
> spear, etc.) on one axis and ST on the other. Then Roman soldiers could
> carry short swords without being inefficient whether they were ST 11 or
> not, etc..
>
> I may have got a bit carried away.
>
> The output of the program is an HTML file
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezn3zo741cp0te1/weapons_short_integer.html?dl
> and a longer list including weapons I haven't figured out yet:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/gy2akd3sj32qmts/weapons_long_integer.html?dl0
> There's also commentary attached.
>
> Any comments gratefully accepted, including anything that looks stupid or
> how your favourite weapon is missing.
>
> - ---
> David
>
> > 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:24:39 -0600
> From: raito@raito.com
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> > Just a quick set of comments:
> > Surely part of basic training for an army would be physical exercise fo
r
> > the troops to get them all to be strong enough to wield their basic
> > weapons. So I have no issue with requiring the Roman Legionnaires to be
> > min ST 11 to use the gladius effectively. If someone less than ST 11
> > picked one up, they would be at an AdjDX penalty --not incapable of usi
ng
> > it. Similarly when someone advances to ST 12, they don't have to stop
> > using the gladius. Arguably you could give them an AdjDX bonus for bein
g
> > stronger than needed, but I think it just adds unnecessary book keeping
.
> > I agree about the interchangeability of weapons issue. But the real iss
ue
> > for me is not that a sword pierces and an ax slashes. It's based on cos
t
> > and convention. Historically swords were EXPENSIVE and were a mark of
> > upper ranks (gladius carrying Romans being an exception, perhaps -- but
> > the cost of equipping a legion was a major reason only the Romans did
> it).
>
> It's more likely that the Romans culture was different than either the
> Bronze Age European Celts before (and during) it and the feudal cultures
> that followed. And note that originally the spatha was a cavalry weapon,
> which ends up pointing to the ascendency of the mounted knight in Europe.
>
> And historically, swords were less expensive than you seem to think. Ther
e
> were many thousands made. Armour was a lot more expensive than weapons.
>
> Sure they were the mark of nobility. Can't have the peasants having decen
t
> weapons, now can we?
>
> The Romans had industry. Metal objects for them weren't all that expensiv
e.
>
> > Axes and spears are much cheaper to make and easier to learn how to use
.I
> > think that swords should cost much more than other weapons -- and long
> bow
> > arrows should be a significant expense too -- and probably have some so
rt
>
> Arrows are really not expensive. If they were, the English wouldn't have
> had so many.
>
> It's also hard to believe that axes and spears are easier to learn. A
> sword cuts when swung with the blade in line with the cut. So does an axe
,
> but not for its full length. A spear pokes, but only at a point
> (generally, there's tons of exceptions there). My experience is that it's
> easier to teach basic competency with a sword than nearly any other hand
> weapon. Have you learned to use any of them? (I figure it's an honest
> question as you've said which are easier.)
>
> > of penalty for badly made.
> > Naginata, etc. These are highly specialized weapons from fairly late er
a
> > societies. If you're gaming in Conan era settings they should be
> > unavailable unless someone has a very good back story. (I am a firm
> > believer in paying for unusual talents or gear with excellent back
> > stories.)
>
> 1146 is hardly 'late'. But I think you miss the point. *
>
> > Defense: I do think that a Parry talent would be appropriate (and shoul
d
> > be built in to Fencing). Though I must say that using a battle axe to
> > parry seems a stretch. IQ and DX minimums should apply. I could see it
>
> Hardly a stretch. If it has a haft, it's used for defense, one way or
> another. Read Jeu de la Hache and you'll see what axe fighting was like.
>
> > being used with blade weapons and spears and quarterstaffs, for instanc
e.
> > You could wrap the Shield talent into it -- or expand shield to include
> > it. Sometimes you use a shield to slide the blow aside rather than just
> > absorb the damage.
>
> * My point is that you're putting way too much emphasis on the names of
> things.
>
> The naginata in game terms is nothing more than a polearm that gives more
> damage if one has the requisite skill. And note that when the wielder has
> the strength for a more powerful weapon, that skill no longer has value.
> Similarly, I don't consider the names of any of the weapons to be literal
.
> They're just part of the fetish of game designers to put names to things.
> I can partly understand that, because 'sword for strength 11 doing 2-1'
> doesn't sound as good as 'shortsword'. But don't let names get in the way
> of the mechanics. Don't go the way of Gygax, who had to have umpteen pole
> arms, every one just a bit different. They just aren't all that different
> (and I say that from experience).
>
> As far as other Talents go, I've been messing with TFT since it first cam
e
> out, and tried many variations on improving the Shield Talent, adding
> Parrying, modifying damage based on ST/DX, allowing variable damage dice
> according to a formula, and a whole lot of other things. And the only
> things I've kept over all that time were allowing the Fencing Talent with
> weapons other than swords, and the Shield Wall Talent.
>
> The Shield Wall Talent is worth describing again, since the Romans came
> up. It's an IQ 8 cost 1 (as I remember) with a prerequisite of Shield. Ho
w
> it works is that if a figure's front hexes overlap with another figures
> front hexes, and they both have shields and the Shield Wall Talent, the
> figure can subtract damage equal to both shield's ratings. And it works i
f
> the figure has 2 other figures with overlapping front hexes. Makes for a
> mean formation when you have a line of these guys, each reducing the hits
> by 3 shield's worth.
>
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:46:24 -0800
> From: Peter von Kleinsmid <pvk@oz.net>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> I'm with Neil, mostly. (Cool Shield Wall Talent!)
>
> I think that damage should scale with ST... in theory... but that one
> should try to be aware of the effects on gameplay of any house rules.
> It doesn't take much to throw TFT balance off quite a bit, as it's
> balanced by single point values.
>
> (BTW, I like the GURPS damage system, but then, I like the rest of
> GURPS too, and most TFT players seem to be playing TFT because they
> prefer the simplicity.)
>
> I'd note that Metagaming (Howard Thompson not Steve Jackson)
> published a crude optional rule for sliding damage by ST in the
> Codex, which lists a "Special Sword" that scales with ST. This makes
> sense but our group never made any sense of what it was really
> suggesting in the scope of a game with other weapons. But it shows
> that even HT liked the general idea, but failed to provide a solution
> that would do a good balanced job of giving an effect of ST as well
> as of the weapon used, without causing imbalance or weird nonsense
> ("special sword"? WTH?).
>
> If I were to try to make a TFT house rule, it might simply be +1
> damage rank for every 2 ST you have over the weapon's MinST, or
> something. That is at least consistent with the -1 per 2 ST under the
> MinST.
>
> I would also use something like the active defense rules we were
> using in the Thail PBEM campaign, minus the super-elite defense
> master talents which seemed overpowered unless you _want_ a tiered
> uberness effect.
>
> PvK
>
> > 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, 11 Feb 2015 00:36:51 -0800
> From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> My thoughts on very strong figures being able to use weapons better:
>
> In my campaign, if you are 1 ST higher than a weapon you do +1 damage.
> If you are 2 ST higher than that, you do +2 damage.
> If you are 3 ST higher than that, you do +3 damage, etc.
>
> So the key numbers are:
>
> ST
> Higher
> Than                    Damage
> Needed:                 Bonus:
>
> 0                               +0
> 1                               +1
> 3                               +2
> 6                               +3
> 10                              +4
> 15                              +5
> 21                              +6
> 28                              +7, etc.
>
> This is of course an arithmetic series.
>
> Basically, if you are a bit stronger, it helps, but soon you should
> upgrade to
> a bigger and better sword.  However, you do feel like you get a bit of a
> bonus
> if you are significantly stronger than the minimum needed for a weapon.
>
> If you have a cool sword which you inherited from your grandfather, you c
an
> keep using it.  But as your ST improves, you get less and less of a bonus
> to
> the damage.
>
> This system does not unbalance the game at all, I have used it for many
> years.  It does mean you must give minimum ST values to things like
> daggers.
>
> Warm regards, Rick.
> > 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, 11 Feb 2015 14:52:13 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Teagan Harper <harperteagan@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> Hey Neil,
> I think the thing with the Romans was training. They trained their legion
na
> ires to fight together, support the man next to you. And thus a standard 
we
> apon was important to them. The spatha was Celtic, I think, adopted by th
e
> Romans after their adventures in Gaul because of the longer reach -- and 
le
> ading to all of our ideas of Dark Ages swords (Viking, Norman, etc.)
> I did take fencing and archery in college (what fun a single credit could
 b
> e!) but no, I've never studied fighting with an ax or spear. I just know 
th
> at they were the weapons that were most likely to hand for most non-noble
s.
>  If you grew up on a farm, you used an ax as a tool and a spear to fend o
ff
>  predators. And when you wandered off to become a hero, they were probabl
y
> the weapons you took with you.
>
> I've always thought that swords took a lot more effort to make than eithe
r
> spears or axes. All that banging and folding to get a weapon that is flex
ib
> le and hard at the same time. And while I'm sure that thousands of them w
er
> e made, I still suspect that many more spears and axes were turned out by
 h
> alfway talented blacksmiths all over the world. I do agree about armor. H
ar
> d and time consuming to make.
> And the arrow thing. The English had a cottage industry making arrows, an
d
> while an individual arrow might only take a short while to fashion, you n
ee
> d the set up to churn out a bunch. I guess my point there is that many of
 u
> s think of arrows as free, and they would not be. And unlike most weapons
 t
> hey get used up and need to be replaced. I just bought a couple of hundre
d
> rounds of .38 special and they set me back a shade over $.40 per round --
 c
> heap, but not so much when you start spraying them around like a fire hos
e!
>
>
> I was thinking of halberds as being fairly late (14th century) but I do s
ee
>  that the naginata was around in the 12 century -- though this weapon has
 a
> lways bothered me in the rules. It's a cultural misfit and was certainly 
no
> t known in the worlds most of us set our games in. If you're playing Bush
id
> o, fine. If it's Camelot or Middle Earth, notĀ  so easy to explain. 
And
>  I'm not sure I agree about it being equivalent to a halberd or spear. Th
e
> usage is certainly very different with the naginata being more of a sword
 o
> n a stick and the fighting style more like fencing than jabbing or choppi
ng
> . (No, I've not used one, but I have watched bouts on TV.)
>
> I like the Shield Wall talent -- certainly something well known as a defe
ns
> ive style.
> As for the naming of names, that's part of the charm, isn't it? What make
s
> my guy different than yours is that he carries a rapier, not just a sword
.
> But not in Camelot.
> T
>
>
>
>       From: "raito@raito.com" <raito@raito.com>
>  To: tft@brainiac.com
>  Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:24 PM
>  Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> > Just a quick set of comments:
> > Surely part of basic training for an army would be physical exercise fo
r
> > the troops to get them all to be strong enough to wield their basic
> > weapons. So I have no issue with requiring the Roman Legionnaires to be
> > min ST 11 to use the gladius effectively. If someone less than ST 11
> > picked one up, they would be at an AdjDX penalty --not incapable of usi
ng
> > it. Similarly when someone advances to ST 12, they don't have to stop
> > using the gladius. Arguably you could give them an AdjDX bonus for bein
g
> > stronger than needed, but I think it just adds unnecessary book keeping
.
> > I agree about the interchangeability of weapons issue. But the real iss
ue
> > for me is not that a sword pierces and an ax slashes. It's based on cos
t
> > and convention. Historically swords were EXPENSIVE and were a mark of
> > upper ranks (gladius carrying Romans being an exception, perhaps -- but
> > the cost of equipping a legion was a major reason only the Romans did i
t)
> .
>
> It's more likely that the Romans culture was different than either the
> Bronze Age European Celts before (and during) it and the feudal cultures
> that followed. And note that originally the spatha was a cavalry weapon,
> which ends up pointing to the ascendency of the mounted knight in Europe.
>
> And historically, swords were less expensive than you seem to think. Ther
e
> were many thousands made. Armour was a lot more expensive than weapons.
>
> Sure they were the mark of nobility. Can't have the peasants having decen
t
> weapons, now can we?
>
> The Romans had industry. Metal objects for them weren't all that expensiv
e.
>
> > Axes and spears are much cheaper to make and easier to learn how to use
.I
> > think that swords should cost much more than other weapons -- and long 
bo
> w
> > arrows should be a significant expense too -- and probably have some so
rt
>
> Arrows are really not expensive. If they were, the English wouldn't have
> had so many.
>
> It's also hard to believe that axes and spears are easier to learn. A
> sword cuts when swung with the blade in line with the cut. So does an axe
,
> but not for its full length. A spear pokes, but only at a point
> (generally, there's tons of exceptions there). My experience is that it's
> easier to teach basic competency with a sword than nearly any other hand
> weapon. Have you learned to use any of them? (I figure it's an honest
> question as you've said which are easier.)
>
> > of penalty for badly made.
> > Naginata, etc. These are highly specialized weapons from fairly late er
a
> > societies. If you're gaming in Conan era settings they should be
> > unavailable unless someone has a very good back story. (I am a firm
> > believer in paying for unusual talents or gear with excellent back
> > stories.)
>
> 1146 is hardly 'late'. But I think you miss the point. *
>
> > Defense: I do think that a Parry talent would be appropriate (and shoul
d
> > be built in to Fencing). Though I must say that using a battle axe to
> > parry seems a stretch. IQ and DX minimums should apply. I could see it
>
> Hardly a stretch. If it has a haft, it's used for defense, one way or
> another. Read Jeu de la Hache and you'll see what axe fighting was like.
>
> > being used with blade weapons and spears and quarterstaffs, for instanc
e.
> > You could wrap the Shield talent into it -- or expand shield to include
> > it. Sometimes you use a shield to slide the blow aside rather than just
> > absorb the damage.
>
> * My point is that you're putting way too much emphasis on the names of
> things.
>
> The naginata in game terms is nothing more than a polearm that gives more
> damage if one has the requisite skill. And note that when the wielder has
> the strength for a more powerful weapon, that skill no longer has value.
> Similarly, I don't consider the names of any of the weapons to be literal
.
> They're just part of the fetish of game designers to put names to things.
> I can partly understand that, because 'sword for strength 11 doing 2-1'
> doesn't sound as good as 'shortsword'. But don't let names get in the way
> of the mechanics. Don't go the way of Gygax, who had to have umpteen pole
> arms, every one just a bit different. They just aren't all that different
> (and I say that from experience).
>
> As far as other Talents go, I've been messing with TFT since it first cam
e
> out, and tried many variations on improving the Shield Talent, adding
> Parrying, modifying damage based on ST/DX, allowing variable damage dice
> according to a formula, and a whole lot of other things. And the only
> things I've kept over all that time were allowing the Fencing Talent with
> weapons other than swords, and the Shield Wall Talent.
>
> The Shield Wall Talent is worth describing again, since the Romans came
> up. It's an IQ 8 cost 1 (as I remember) with a prerequisite of Shield. Ho
w
> it works is that if a figure's front hexes overlap with another figures
> front hexes, and they both have shields and the Shield Wall Talent, the
> figure can subtract damage equal to both shield's ratings. And it works i
f
> the figure has 2 other figures with overlapping front hexes. Makes for a
> mean formation when you have a line of these guys, each reducing the hits
> by 3 shield's worth.
>
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:32:42 -0600
> From: raito@raito.com
> Subject: Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
>
> Hey,
>
> > Hey Neil,
> > I think the thing with the Romans was training. They trained their
> > legionna
> > ires to fight together, support the man next to you. And thus a standar
d
> > we
> > apon was important to them. The spatha was Celtic, I think, adopted by
> the
> > Romans after their adventures in Gaul because of the longer reach -- an
d
> > le
> > ading to all of our ideas of Dark Ages swords (Viking, Norman, etc.)
>
> Yeah, the standards, in both equipment and training, were important to ho
w
> the legions worked.
> In fact, it was partly the Romans, and partly the dark age anglo-saxons,
> who inspired that Shield Wall talent.
> The idea I had was equal parts making fighting in formation more effectiv
e
> than individual fighting, and making mass combat less deadly.
> You long-time readers may laugh, given my posts over the years, but what 
I
> was trying to do was to make actual mass battles last longer because from
> my reading of battle accounts the engagements lasted longer than what TFT
> usually has.
>
> > I did take fencing and archery in college (what fun a single credit cou
ld
> > b
> > e!) but no, I've never studied fighting with an ax or spear. I just kno
w
> > th
> > at they were the weapons that were most likely to hand for most
> > non-nobles.
>
> Even if you're talking about European nobles, that's not quite correct.
> Current research is showing that even during the age of mail, it was
> pretty darned hard to kill someone with a single blow from a single-hande
d
> sword. And darned near impossible once plate comes in (read up on some
> Fiore de Liberi -- unarmoured and armoured combat diverge quite sharply
> from the same basic principles). So by the 14th century, many knights
> would arm themselves with something other than a sword (though they still
> wore their sword). Usually mace or ax. By the 15th century, the shield al
l
> but disappears, and two handed weapons gain favor. The mounted lance is
> really nothing more than a specialized spear, and you'll still find
> accounts of the nobility using them.
>
> If you head over to Asia, the ax is less prevalent, but the spear is more
> prevalent. You'll find accounts of the Japanese only using their swords
> for duelling encounters on the field, and using spears or other pole
> weapons otherwise. Well, at least after the Heian, where mounted archery
> was still the thing.
>
> I fenced epee and wrestled in high school, lived for a while in a TKD
> school, and have done SCA for the last 37 years. I've also taken a bundle
> of WMA classes, and done a few different sorts of steel weapon fighting.
> For more practical experience, I was also a bouncer in college. One of th
e
> constants of my life is learning how to beat people up.
>
> >  If you grew up on a farm, you used an ax as a tool and a spear to fend
> > off
> >  predators. And when you wandered off to become a hero, they were
> probably
> > the weapons you took with you.
>
> That happened a lot less in Europe than you might think.
>
> > I've always thought that swords took a lot more effort to make than
> either
> > spears or axes. All that banging and folding to get a weapon that is
> > flexib
> > le and hard at the same time. And while I'm sure that thousands of them
> > wer
> > e made, I still suspect that many more spears and axes were turned out 
by
> > h
> > alfway talented blacksmiths all over the world. I do agree about armor.
> > Har
> > d and time consuming to make.
>
> Don't get me started on sword making. I'm pretty well plugged into that
> community. One thing the modern sword makers all agree on -- they'd never
> take a sword made the ancient way into battle, ever. Sure, they were more
> expensive to make, but not oh-my-gosh more expensive. Especially compared
> to armour.
>
> All that banging and folding was done in Europe (early on) to make up for
> the poor quality bog ore they were using. Getting most of the slag out of
> the material in those early smelts took effort. In Japan, where they used
> tatara smelts, the folding had to do with creating a homogenous material
> from pieces of differing carbon content.
>
> And I think you'd find that it's the weaponsmiths making most of the
> dedicated spear and ax weapons. Axes for combat tend towards different
> lines than axes for wood (for one thing, the angle of the edge to the
> haft). And some cultures, the Scandinavians come to mind, had several
> different sorts of axes just for wood (felling vs. splitting, vs.
> smoothing, etc.).
>
> Even though the sword is seen as the cultural accessory of the nobility,
> it's really the armour that sets them apart. Note that during the period
> referring to someone as armed means they're wearing armour. And at least
> in the 14th century, many of the deed challenges appear to mention
> specifically that they're open to men who have armour.
>
> > And the arrow thing. The English had a cottage industry making arrows,
> and
> > while an individual arrow might only take a short while to fashion, you
> > nee
> > d the set up to churn out a bunch. I guess my point there is that many 
of
> > u
> > s think of arrows as free, and they would not be. And unlike most weapo
ns
> > t
> > hey get used up and need to be replaced. I just bought a couple of
> hundred
> > rounds of .38 special and they set me back a shade over $.40 per round 
--
> > c
> > heap, but not so much when you start spraying them around like a fire
> > hose!
>
> Yes, not free, but not very expensive either. If the accounts can be
> believed, the English kept around lots of heads and heathers, and used
> local wood for shafts.
>
> > I was thinking of halberds as being fairly late (14th century) but I do
> > see
> >  that the naginata was around in the 12 century -- though this weapon h
as
> > a
> > lways bothered me in the rules. It's a cultural misfit and was certainl
y
> > no
> > t known in the worlds most of us set our games in. If you're playing
> > Bushid
> > o, fine. If it's Camelot or Middle Earth, notĀ  so easy to explain
. And
> >  I'm not sure I agree about it being equivalent to a halberd or spear.
> The
> > usage is certainly very different with the naginata being more of a swo
rd
> > o
> > n a stick and the fighting style more like fencing than jabbing or
> > chopping
> > . (No, I've not used one, but I have watched bouts on TV.)
>
> And really, there's nothing special about a naginata vs. some other
> polearm that would make it do more damage at lower ST.
>
> And I wouldn't take those TV bouts too seriously. Kendo and naginata bout
s
> these days run under pretty specific rules that bear little resemblance t
o
> actual fighting. For example, in a modern naginata bout, a thrust to the
> body is not a scoring blow. It isn't in kendo, either.
>
> Stylistically, a lot of the fencing-like action you see taking place is
> the competitors attempting to gain access to the center line in order to
> attack. The same happens in kendo (my fun 1 credit class in college).
>
> > I like the Shield Wall talent -- certainly something well known as a
> > defens
> > ive style.
> > As for the naming of names, that's part of the charm, isn't it? What
> makes
> > my guy different than yours is that he carries a rapier, not just a
> sword.
> > But not in Camelot.
> > T
>
> The names can be charming, as long as they don't get in the way.
>
> My guys' rapiers are just smaller swords.
>
> Neil Gilmore
> raito@raito.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"
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:14:59 -0800
> From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
> Subject: (TFT) New TFT Talent: Shield Wall.
>
> Hi guys,
>   I am adapting a new talent by Neil Gilmore for possible use in my
> campaign
> that I saw on the TFT mailing list and would like your thoughts.
>
>
> IQ 8            Shield Wall (1)         co-requisite shield.
> If two figures with this talent have 'overlapping' front hexes, each may
> share
> one point of their shield's damage protection.  If you have a man on
> each
> side of you, (each with this talent), you may get a point of protection
> from each.
> 'Overlapping' in this context means if the attack comes thru a shared
> front
> hex OR if you are standing in the front hex of the man beside you who is
>
> part of the shield wall.
>
>
> Some thoughts of my own.
> - -- Currently this protects only one hit per shield.  A more powerful
> (realistic?)
> version would protect you the amount of the size of the shield (everyone
> must
> carry the same shield size).   So if your shield wall had everyone
> carrying
> large shields, the man in the middle would get –4 damage from att
acks
> thru
> the front.
>
> - -- I think that most traditional shield walls (Roman, Greek, English
> around 1044),
> etc. all used large shields.  This would suggest that either the shield
> has to be
> at least that large to work, or the bonus is equal to the size of the
> shield (so there
> is a strong incentive to got to larger shields.)
>
> - -- The careful definition of overlapping is so shield walls can be buil
t
> along
> alternate hex grains and so we don't have some people in the wall having
>
> more protection than others in the same wall.  Basically this is so
> shield walls
> are not dominated by the hex grid.  This rule does mean that the wall
> can
> curve gently.  However, everyone ends up having to face the same way,
> you
> can't make a shield wall out of six figures radiating out from a central
> hex. (Or
> rather you can, but the wall is only half as effective and a everyone
> has one
> side hex exposed.)
>
> - -- In my campaign prerequisites are like spells, which grant you the
> lower level
> spell at no memory cost.  Co-requisites are like talents where you have
> to pay
> memory for the lower level talent.
>
> - -- I have agis shields in my campaign (which stop 3 hits) and tower
> shields
> (which stop more, depending on size).  This is why I am nervous about
> Neil's
> original rule that adds the full value of the shield to both sides.  Do
> we want to
> put a maximum of –2 hits taken in these rules to prevent shield w
alls
> from being
> dominated by huge shields?
>
> 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 #408
> *************************
>
> > 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"