[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Pole weapons in Rick's campaign - Play styles.
We played with the AM rules straight from the book, so there was a lot of
disengaging and initiative was huge. I avoided the charge once early un
til he put his back to the wall. Then every time either of us closed the
sword defended as his option which with my horrible rolling made for a c
ouple of long battles. If the charge missed or didn't cause the -2 DX pe
nalty that next round initiative was huge for the sword.
Edward Kroeten
Farmers Agent
7100 Stevenson Blvd Suite 105
Fremont, CA 94538
Office Phone 510-646-1500
Mobile Phone 510-579-0135
Fax 510-438-6875
Website: www.kroeteninsurance.com
------ Original Message ------
Received: 10:26 AM PDT, 10/21/2015
From: Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>
To: "tft@brainiac.com" <tft@brainiac.com>
Subject: Re: (TFT) Pole weapons in Rick's campaign - Play styles.
And actually, it made me pull out my copy of melee and start worki
ng throug
h the issues again too. I see the attraction of doing it the wa
y Ed d
oes it, though I still feel it's a tad hinky. But maybe my lack
of fa
miliarity with that specific process (I never agreed with the 3-
hex straigh
t line charge rule in the first place, and thus never implemente
d it), is w
hat's leading me to feel that way.
Between the "3-hex straight line charge," and Ed's "3 hexes wort
h of moveme
nt, more of less in a charge-like fashion," I much prefer Ed's v
ersion sinc
e it seems to me to more or less reflect the realities of a tact
ical situat
ion. Having said that, I think I still buy into the "jab" line
a bit
more, but having played it out a few times, I'm more open to the
charge tha
n I was....
From: Edward kroeten <ekroeten@farmersagent.com>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: (TFT) Pole weapons in Rick's campaign - Play styles
.
Not at all, and if I do offend anyone that is not my intention.
Â-
-As a matter of fact I have really enjoyed this discussion and i
t got me
playing TFT with my son. Â However that may not add to my u
nderst
anding of spear vs sword as he only won 1 battle of 10 (5 as eac
h type).
One thing we both did though was defend option against the charg
e. So I wou
ld like to see that simulated.Â
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smart
phone
-------- Original message --------
From: Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>
Date: 10/20/2015 9:22 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: Re: (TFT) Pole weapons in Rick's campaign - Play styles
.
I actually haven't found the debate to be acrimonious at all. It
seems to m
e that folks have put forward their thoughts, frequently providi
ng examples
from history that have guided their personal positions, and that
others ha
ve offered different insights. No one has called anyone e
lse a
name,
and everyone seems to be working to try and understand one anoth
er's positi
ons.Â
Are you seeing something different here? Because I don't
find,
for ex
ample, my exchange with Ed regarding pole weapons historically s
peaking, to
be anything other than informative and enjoyable. He and
I may
have
different view points, but we've made our points maturely and po
litely to o
ne another as far as I can tell.
Ed, do you feel like we've been acrimonious towards one another?
v/rJeff
     From: Rick Smi
th <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:07 PM
Subject: (TFT) Pole weapons in Rick's campaign - Play styles.
 Â
Hi all,
 this is beginning to sound like a religious debate.Â
-
- Since by d
efinition
all viewpoints are equally valid (or invalid), I now feel like I
can chime
in.  :D
 It seems that the main points of debate are:
-- basic damage of spear & larger pole weapons.
-- If you want a 3 hex or 1 hex charge to get double damage.
-- There are penalties for tight quarters for pole weapons.
-- if double damage is too much of a bonus.
Those who have nerfed the double damage are happier with the pol
e
weapons doing more base damage. If my understanding is co
rrect
most of those who like 1 hex charges have nerfed the double dama
ge.
(Where as those who like the double damage bonus are more likely
to
demand that the spear guys have to work for it.)
TFT is a game. I do not use it to simulate reality, so ca
lling
on exa
mples
from 600 years ago, tho interesting, do not tempt me to change m
y rules.-
-¿½
�
My question on adding rules is do the new rules improve game pla
y in
some way.
Claiming Steve Jackson REALLY intended X & Y, likewise does not
move
me. If he was a genius, then GURPS would be more fun, and
I wou
ld not
have stuck with TFT. (Over the years, I've made many rule
s that
I lik
e
better than SJ, re - economy of wishes for one example. I
event
ually
broke
my mental habit that I should do everything SJ's way.)
*****
As for the 4 main questions above:
-- I am happy with pole weapons doing significantly less than ot
her
weapons in straight fighting. They get other advantages (
re pok
es and
double damage charges). I prefer that the different weapo
ns 'fe
el'
different, and have different uses. Variety is the spice
of lif
e.
-- Charge 3 hexes for double damage. Rather than worrying
about
'a
straight line', I used the 'close 3 hexes' rule. The reas
on I p
ut up
with the
extra complexity is:
---- To get a big bonus you should work for it.
---- It seems logical to me.
---- Variety is the spice of life.
---- It makes tactical maneuver more important.
To my mind, this last point is most important. I disliked
D&D c
ombat
where
you rush forward, then stand still and hack, hack, hack.Â
(Admit
tedly
I may
have had a poor D&D GM, but still.)
When spearmen have to get a run for their bonus, they do not fee
l like
every other melee fighter. Suddenly it is worthwhile to c
rowd t
hem so
they
don't have room, or will have to go over some rough ground to ge
t their
bonus. Walls and pits, river edges and brambles become mo
re imp
ortant
when spear guys need to manoeuvre. Fighting in dense cove
r is d
iffere
nt
(for pole weapons) than on a flat plain.
I LIKE terrain. In even a small fight, I am likely to spe
nd a b
it of
time dropping
terrain, for people to take advantage of or for my NPC's to hind
er the PC's
with.
-- Penalties for pole weapons in tight quarters. None for
short
pole
weapons,
but if you are striking someone one meter in front of you and th
ere is a ma
ss
of stuff behind you and your pole weapon is 3.5 meters long, I g
ive a penal
ty.
I put up with the complexity because it feels more realistic, it
make the w
eapons
feel different from each other (and variety, after all, is...) a
nd it makes
the terrain
more important.
-- Nerfing the double damage. I have fiddled with this fo
r a wh
ile no
w. The
rule seems fine for the smaller weapons, but do we really want p
ike axes to
do (2d+2 ) * 2 for 8 to 24 damage if they get off their charge?��
Some
thoughts...
---- The powerful PC's in my campaign eventually tend to get eno
ugh armor t
hat
they are largely immune to normal weapons. I like having
a enem
y or t
wo that
they have to worry about.
---- I have been working on making 'a tonne of armor' more diffi
culty to ge
t for
my PC's. As the average total armor of the big establishe
d PC h
as dro
pped,
this made me more eager to nerf pole weapons.
---- I tried distance you charge (up to 6 hexes), is equal to th
e bonus.-
-¿½
� Thus
charges of +3 or +4 were most typical. (Very close to the
+1 di
e dama
ge that
a few people use.)Â I didn't like this after trying it for
quite
a whi
le. The extra
complexity for a modest bonus did not thrill me. (Wait! d
id he
charge
3 or 4
hexes???)Â We lost the impact of fearing big charges - pol
e weap
ons fe
lt more
like every other weapon.
---- I was making rules for mounted pole weapons. First d
raft w
as if
you charge
from 5 to 14 hexes you do *2; from 15 to 24 hexes was *3; from 2
5 to 34 hex
es
was *4, etc. While arguably realistic (fast charges shoul
d do m
ore) t
his was
doing too much damage.
---- I am now using this rule: three hex charges do * 1.5 damage
, and halbe
rds
and pike axes are treated as heavy spears. They do more d
amage
when s
wung
as axes.Â
Now mounted rules are:
From:Â Â Â Â Â Â-
- Â Â Â Â Â
    Damage bonus:
5 to 14 hexes    Â
    * 1.5
15 to 24 hexes    Â
    * 2.
0
25 to 34 hexes    Â
    * 2.
5, etc.
I have just made this change, we will see how it plays out.Â
But
a 16
ST pike ax
wielder (or a ST 15 guy with a one point great effort), will do
2d+1 * 1.5
on a charge
which results in from 5 to 20 damage. This is enough to b
e scar
y but
not too
much for my campaign. I think it will work well.
*****
SUMMARY:
I thiink that those who like lots of tactical maneuvers & key te
rrain are m
ore likely
to go with the 3 hex charge rules. The big bonus for pull
ing of
f the
3 hex charge
is likely to come with penalties (being able to hit a charging w
eapon, DX p
enalties
for having terrain or enemies behind a pike, etc.)
Those who like the weapons to be pretty much alike are more like
ly to have
nerfed the double damage and require only a one hex charge.Â
The
BIG a
dvantage
to this philosophy is that there are less combat rules and fewer
exceptions
.
I totally think that both versions will work! I am not li
kely t
o bulg
e from my set of
rules. My players have been playing for years; they know
the co
mplex
rules and like
them. My players gloat when they are faced by spears and
pike a
xes in
a forest,
maneuver the enemy in a situation where they are tangled in the
terrain, no
t able
to support each other, unable to charge effectively, and are sla
ughtered.
But if you like a minimal rule set more power to you!
I think that the acrimony of the spear pole weapons debate here
is from peo
ple who
have two different philosophies. They have powerful spear
s (wit
h pena
lties and
exceptions) or simple nerfed spears. Both have systems th
at wor
k well
, and
neither will convince the other to change.
*****
So should we be debating about what is right, or what is right f
or your cam
paign?
If you are really concerned with what is realistic I would try G
URPS.Â
If you are
really concerned with what SJ likes, I would try GURPS.
Now someone might say to me, "Rick, if you have these complex ru
les, why ar
e you
not playing GURPS?" Good question. I tried GURPS f
o
r a long tim
e, until my players
and I knew the system well and could run it fast. Even th
en GUR
PS was
too slow
for me and I liked their magic system much less than TFT's magic
.Â-
- My
rules are
arguably less realistic than GURPS, but they are faster.
Warm regards, Rick.
On 2015-10-20, at 4:33 PM, Jeffrey Vandine wrote:
> Your privilege of course, but you should read the history (adm
ittedly, no
t
> a frequently wargamed or written about period, and thus somewh
at obscure)
;
> it might change your perceptions a bit.
>
>Â Â Â From: Edward kroeten <ekroeten@farm
ersagent.com>
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:24 PM
> Subject: Re: (TFT) Spear vs. Shortsword maneuvers
>
>
>  ÂÂ
> The swiss were most effective against cavalry they were nearly
wiped out
to
> a man in one battle against regular infantry. â€��â
€šÃ‚�
� Spanish troops
> were not dominant, sorry not buying.‹â
€
šÃ‚
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the messag
e body
"unsubscribe tft"
Â
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the messag
e body
"unsubscribe tft"
This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this transmis
sion may co
ntain confidential information and are intended solely for the a
ddressee (s
) named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient,
any use of,
disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on the contents o
f this e-m
ail information is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the send
er advising
of the error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the
message an
d any accompanying documents.
Farmers Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, includi
ng Farmers
Financial Solutions, LLC, reserve the right to monitor and revie
w the conte
nt of all e-mail communications and attachments sent or received
by or from
this address and to retain them in accordance with the applicabl
e regulato
ry requirements. Securities are offered through Farmers Financia
l Solutions
, LLC, 30801 Agoura Road, Building 1, Agoura Hills, California 9
1301. Membe
r FINRA & SIPC.
¶Ú-…秶*Þ–+-o,+��Ø
§‚Ú-~ßÛ­¨§‰��ÿr
‰ÿR{.nÇ+‰·›Êf¢��)
ඉšŽŠÝ¢jÿn¶
¢-
-&œýÊ&Â+a¶¦zËæèw/��-
-Ë›±Êâmë_
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the messag
e 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"