[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (TFT) Realism and ideal realism in TFT

Oops I don't give the +2 dx for less than 3 hexes.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> 
Date: 10/21/2015  10:33 AM  (GMT-08:00) 
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 that
SJ made in the original Melee, have you not?


  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 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.  
>> 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"

This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this transmission may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the addressee (s) named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient, any use of, disclosure, 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 content of all e-mail communications and attachments sent or received by or from this address and to retain them in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Securities are offered through Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC, 30801 Agoura Road, Building 1, Agoura Hills, California 91301. Member FINRA & SIPC.