Re: (TFT) Realism and ideal realism in TFT

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

> Too many David's on this list!

You're right. We should be forced to fight and the loser has to change his
name.

I guess I should take the 11-13-8 with a two-handed spear doing 1+2.
Assuming naginata aren't permitted. :-)

---
David


On 21 October 2015 at 23:43, David O. Miller <davidomiller@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Too many David's on this list!  ;^)
>
> Let me just throw this out there since some of you feel that three hex
> charges do not alter the tactics of the game. Looking at the larger set
> of rules does't this nerf force retreats? If I can do a 1 hex charge
> then forcing an opponent to retreat back 1 hex at the end of a turn is a
> viable tactic. Of course I have to either win initiative to lunge at him
> again, or, if he wins, I have to be faster than him. But in the end
> Force Retreats, 1 hex Charge/Lunges, Engagement/Disengagement rules,
> they all work together to make a coherent set of rules.
>
> However, if to make a charge I have to step back 3 hexes, then run back
> in 3 hexes, it's most likely going to take me more than one turn to set
> up, especially if I have to do it in a straight line down one of the six
> hex spines (which brings up all sorts of silly positioning of figures,
> and in some cases you won't even be able to charge a figure that's 3
> hexes away). So, if I disengaged I give my opponent plenty of
> opportunity to simply move away. So why would I do that? It starts to
> promote the charge up and then stand still while hacking at each other.
>
>
> I mentioned that TFT is like a mini chess game and I still firmly belief
> that. Not so much in a one-on-one battle. But when you have 5-6 PCs vs
> 10 goblins in really starts to get very tactical. It's one of the things
> I love most about the system.
>
> David
> __________________________________________
> David O. Miller
> Miller Design/Illustration
> www.davidomiller.com
>
> 2 Dean Court
> East Northport, NY 11731
> (631) 266-6875
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:02 AM, Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone, David.
> >  I agree with your argument completely.  A bunch of my rules are there
>
> > because they 'feel' more real to me, e.g. DX penalties for long pole
>
> > weapon users when their user's back is obstructed.  I increased the
> > strength of the long bow to ST 15, because from my readings of the
> > English Long Bow, I understand that it required a very large amount of
> ST
> > to use properly.  The arguments that bows could be learned relatively
>
> > quickly but the English Long Bow requires years of practice make more
>
> > sense then.  It takes years to build up that massive amount of upper
> body
> > strength.
> >
> >  The things I feel happiest with are when I can make something
> > more realistic with no increase in complexity.  For example, should
> > some missile weapon do 1d+4 dice damage or 3d–3 damage?
> >
> >  One does an average of 7.5 points.
> >  The second does average damage of 7.5 points.  No difference...
> >
> >  However, I've adjusted the weapon tables so that impaling weapons
> > do X dice minus Y, where as cutting weapons and massive impact
> > weapons tend to do X dice plus Y.
> >
> >  Thus with NO special rules, my impaling weapons tend to have a
> > high standard deviation to damage.  (Especially if the target has some
> > armor.)  They might do a little or they might do a lot of damage.
> GURPS
> > system is more realistic.  But it is more complex.  After the hit is
> made and
> > damage is done, you calculate the amount of damage that get's thru the
>
> > armor and then you double the adjusted damage for impaling weapons.
>
> > (Note that in GURPS, impaling weapons tend to do less damage, so
> > they are more often stopped by armor.  Thus they have high variance
> > of damage, especially if they against armor....)
> >
> >  My rules are less complex and faster, but the key thing is that they
>
> > capture an idea with no mechanics.  All that has to be done, is that
>
> > those who design new weapons apply the same system.
> >
> >  Getting back to pole weapons, my rules are certainly not ideal in
> this
> > sense.  They are complex, but it is the minimum complexity I feel is
>
> > needed to capture the key idea that they can get a significant bonus
> to
> > damage by charging 3+ hexes, (which encourages maneuver and
> > terrain effects) and that long weapons are awkward in tight spaces
> (which
> > encourages terrain effects).  Important terrain means that the battles
> have
> > more variety.
> >
> >  I am also willing to put up with a bit more complexity in order to
> have the
> > different weapons play differently from each other.  The upshot is
> that the
> > battles have more variety.  If someone could absolutely prove to me,
> that
> > historically, that there was not real difference tactics wise between
> pole
> > weapons and swords, I would STILL keep my system.
> >
> >  Which reminds me of story...
> >
> >  I had an old player who felt he knew infinitely more about melee
> combat
> > than me because he was in the SCA.  His argument, was that pole
> weapons,
> > swords, axes, maces, etc. were all the same.  My wry reply that, "they
> all,
> > basically, could be treated like padded clubs," did not penetrate.  I
> finally
> > ended the debate by saying that I liked my rules where the different
> weapons
> > were treated differently because it made combat more interesting.
> This
> > allowed me to run the game with out argument and he got to stay the
> expert.
> >
> >  Warm regards, Rick.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2015-10-21, at 12:43 AM, David Bofinger wrote:
> >
> >>> TFT is a game.  I do not use it to simulate reality, so calling on
> >> examples
> >>> from 600 years ago, tho interesting, do not tempt me to change my
> rules.
> >>> My question on adding rules is do the new rules improve game play in
> >>> some way.
> >>
> >> This is fine as far as it goes, but leaves open the question of what
> is an
> >> improvement. I think it's fairly clear that for 90+% of players the
> >> relationship to reality matters. There's an attraction to TFT that
> chess
> >> doesn't have: part of the fun is that what happens in the game can be
> >> imagined as happening in real life, and characters can be imagined to
> be
> >> real people. Conversely, a really silly rule like "characters with
> odd
> >> strength walk on the floor, characters with even strength walk on the
> >> ceiling" would be seen as bad even if it had some advantage in other
> ways.
> >> So for most people eliminating a source of unrealism does, ceteris
> paribus,
> >> constitute an improvement.
> >>
> >> That said, maybe we don't need a lot of resolution: TFT mostly aims
> at a
> >> simple approximation to more or less reality. And I'm doubtful about
> the
> >> relevance of the performance of Swiss pike phalanges, that fought
> mostly in
> >> open fields with thousands of men and 4.5 metre pikes, to the often
> cramped
> >> conditions and small unit tactics of TFT soldiers wielding halberds
> and
> >> spears.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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"
>
>
> 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"