[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Realism and ideal realism in TFT
I use exactly the same rules as Rick for polearms.
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: 10:42 AM PDT, 10/21/2015
From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: Re: (TFT) Realism and ideal realism in TFT
Hi David,
This has never been a problem with us.
-- I don't use the 'must use the hex grain' 3 hex charge rules.
-- Most pole weapon users take Running.
-- On flat ground, if you start one hex away with a spear and
win initiative, you can back up 2 hexes, (you are now 4 hexes
away), then charge forward 3 (giving a charge attack bonus).
This requires only 5 movement.
Now, one change is that if the non-spearman (the victim) wins
initiative, he can close the distance, giving the spearman a +2
DX but no double damage. But is this so bad? A double damage
bonus is pretty steep. Shouldn't it be worked for?
If you have nerfed the double damage bonus, then have you
not already altered the chess like beauty of killing victims tha
t
SJ made in the original Melee, have you not?
:D
Warm regards, Rick.
On 2015-10-21, at 5:43 AM, David O. Miller wrote:
> Too many David's on this list! ;^)
>
> Let me just throw this out there since some of you feel that t
hree hex
> charges do not alter the tactics of the game. Looking at the l
arger 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 lu
nge at him
> again, or, if he wins, I have to be faster than him. But in th
e 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 tu
rn 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 th
at'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 st
arts to
> promote the charge up and then stand still while hacking at ea
ch other.
>
>
> I mentioned that TFT is like a mini chess game and I still fir
mly 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 ar
e there
>
>> because they 'feel' more real to me, e.g. DX penalties for lo
ng pole
>
>> weapon users when their user's back is obstructed. I increase
d the
>> strength of the long bow to ST 15, because from my readings o
f 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 rel
atively
>
>> quickly but the English Long Bow requires years of practice m
ake 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, s
hould
>> 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 wea
pons
>> do X dice minus Y, where as cutting weapons and massive impac
t
>> 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 dama
ge.
> GURPS
>> system is more realistic. But it is more complex. After the h
it 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 we
apons.
>
>> (Note that in GURPS, impaling weapons tend to do less damage,
so
>> they are more often stopped by armor. Thus they have high var
iance
>> of damage, especially if they against armor....)
>>
>> My rules are less complex and faster, but the key thing is th
at they
>
>> capture an idea with no mechanics. All that has to be done, i
s that
>
>> those who design new weapons apply the same system.
>>
>> Getting back to pole weapons, my rules are certainly not idea
l in
> this
>> sense. They are complex, but it is the minimum complexity I f
eel is
>
>> needed to capture the key idea that they can get a significan
t bonus
> to
>> damage by charging 3+ hexes, (which encourages maneuver and
>> terrain effects) and that long weapons are awkward in tight s
paces
> (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 ord
er to
> have the
>> different weapons play differently from each other. The upsho
t 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 me
lee
> combat
>> than me because he was in the SCA. His argument, was that pol
e
> weapons,
>> swords, axes, maces, etc. were all the same. My wry reply tha
t, "they
> all,
>> basically, could be treated like padded clubs," did not penet
rate. I
> finally
>> ended the debate by saying that I liked my rules where the di
fferent
> weapons
>> were treated differently because it made combat more interest
ing.
> This
>> allowed me to run the game with out argument and he got to st
ay 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 call
ing on
>>> examples
>>>> from 600 years ago, tho interesting, do not tempt me to cha
nge my
> rules.
>>>> My question on adding rules is do the new rules improve gam
e 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 play
ers the
>>> relationship to reality matters. There's an attraction to TF
T that
> chess
>>> doesn't have: part of the fun is that what happens in the ga
me can be
>>> imagined as happening in real life, and characters can be im
agined to
> be
>>> real people. Conversely, a really silly rule like "character
s with
> odd
>>> strength walk on the floor, characters with even strength wa
lk 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, c
eteris
> paribus,
>>> constitute an improvement.
>>>
>>> That said, maybe we don't need a lot of resolution: TFT most
ly aims
> at a
>>> simple approximation to more or less reality. And I'm doubtf
ul about
> the
>>> relevance of the performance of Swiss pike phalanges, that f
ought
> mostly in
>>> open fields with thousands of men and 4.5 metre pikes, to th
e often
> cramped
>>> conditions and small unit tactics of TFT soldiers wielding h
alberds
> and
>>> spears.
>>>
>>> --
>>> David
>>>
>>>>> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
>>> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the me
ssage
> body
>>> "unsubscribe tft"
>>
>>
>>> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
>> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the mes
sage body
>> "unsubscribe tft"
>
>
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the mess
age body
> "unsubscribe tft"
>
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 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"