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

Re: (TFT) Realism and ideal realism in TFT


I guess I didn't spell that out to clearly. 

If I force retreat an opponent back one hex at the end of a turn then we 
wind up 1 hex apart. If he then wins initiative on the next turn he can 
elect to move first and simple run the other way. And if I'm engaged I 
can't break engagement on my turn to move to go after him.

However if I win initiative and elect to move first then he's in 
trouble. Even if I'm engaged to a second foe and I've planned it 
correctly I can still stay adjacent to a 2nd enemy and shift into 
engagement against the original foe (the one that I had force 
retreated). Of course I get the charging bonus applied to any damage I 
might give. 

This also brings up the shift one hex while engaged and do bonus pole 
weapon damage tactic. The three hex charge house ruling negates that 
tactic as well. In TFT I can lunge around an opponent to strike at 
another opponent to cause impaling damage.

However, if you go with the 3 hex charge in a straight row, or even in 
some strange looping pattern, then it cascades throughout the game as a 
whole and you've stopped the shift one hex charge as well.

Again, I don't have much problem with TFT as written. However, a lot of 
people seem to perceive that the pole weapon charge is too powerful in 
the game. (For example: You just did What!? 24 points of damage against 
my fighter!? Forget the swords, I'm arming every character I create with 
pole weapons from now on!). So, in answer to this problem, most people 
rationally feel like they have to mess with the movement portion of the 
problem. But this starts to cascade throughout the rules and effects how 
the game flows. (Shifts, Force Retreats, Wining Initiative, etc.) What 
appears to be a simple enough alteration, to me, fundamentally alters 
the game way too much. That's why I've always felt that it was the 
damage part of the pole weapon that needed fixing. That's why we play 
with the additional +1 damage die in a charge. 

However, if you think that subdues pole weapons too much then perhaps an 
additional +2 damage dice in a charge would be better. The randomness of 
the extra dice roll(s) helps tone down the automatic doubling of the 
single die roll. I'll let others do the math and figure the odds (1 
rolled dice +2 then doubled   - vs -   2 or 3 rolled dice +2). 

Besides, I really want my heavily armored dwarves that are armed with 
pole weapons to be able to charge. A one hex lunge allows them to 
achieve that much easier than a three hex charge house rule does. ;^)

Been an interesting conversation guys and gals…..
David O. Miller
Miller Design/Illustration

2 Dean Court
East Northport, NY 11731
(631) 266-6875

On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:43 PM, PvK <pvk@oz.net> wrote:

> For pole weapons and retreats and disengagement, yes it's a nerf, as 
you wrote.
> Except I don't follow "if he wins, I have to be faster than him". It 
doesn't look to me like the rules have initiative or speed matter, 
unless the 3-hex charge rule is used, since a charge is simply going 
from unadjacent to adjacent, regardless of facing before the action 
phase. Of course, it's easy I think or decide that it should matter, and 
play that way if we choose... though I'm still not sure what you mean by 
"faster" having an effect "if he wins (initiative)".
> Note too that the 3-hex charge can be done after a retreat/disengage 
with only 5 hexes' movement, since you start that turn 2 away already, 
so you back up to and run in 3. Unless you don't have MA 10+... which is 
a polearm nerf for people with lower MA...
> And ya forcing straight-line to mean using the hex spine would be 
silly. I'd suggest if people can't eyeball it, to use a pencil and 
require the last three hexes to be able to all contain the same straight 
> PvK
> --- davidomiller@verizon.net wrote:
> ... Looking at the larger set of rules does't this nerf force 
> ... If I can do a 1 hex charge 
> then forcing an opponent to retreat back 1 hex at the end of a turn is 
> viable tactic. Of course I have to either win initiative to lunge at 
> 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 
> in 3 hexes, it's most likely going to take me more than one turn to 
> up, especially if I have to do it in a straight line down one of the 
> 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 
> I mentioned that TFT is like a mini chess game and I still firmly 
> 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 
> I love most about the system. 
> 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"