[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: (TFT) Shields
- From: Meg Tapley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:34:19 -0600
- Authentication-results: zappa.brainiac.com; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=sbcglobal.net email@example.com header.b=lWF1n1/Y
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s2048; t=1448948061; bh=sqzmuRtEe6dFzrlspSWUuDH03gD1sYEmTNyi7HQhirM=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=lWF1n1/YFd+1nxTDIWbFZ4cr6szPQlNs0wl7x2+wvSPO9fDfae0XbQyqjd5GQK+MFwARzGVXLmg0WnjQirGHv0Lvu/kadLLyLYoV7UPmwh1ut+AYteh0dSlaQHSO6T3JGp5QicRu+wdecDj7iNPKSzN+KZ1Ghu/b8S1htaoXjhTn+YA4/TMWAG2ZbRcvgl0SvThbeMnabFhSdfB5RIQ7VLBno8A0BTY+Fu8bPJIZ0YxLJvXN5aTDJUnOo7HIduqu+pAlLhtsuue3+hpfHcbDZy4mF/M8pPB7S1Hiv2gX+4o+UR5gr/ep+WOYYSKRjbBmi9k1GUPkO03x/30q0kvLQg==
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
On 10/21/15 2:05 PM, Edward kroeten wrote:
One word on TFT and reality: shields!
So how might shields be treated more realistically, while maintaining a
playable level of simplicity?
I was thinking about instituting a rule where you can defend (force
opponent to roll 4vDX to hit) with a shield while also attacking, but
take a -4 DX penalty to your attack since it's now counted as a second
Alternatively, attacking a shield-bearing figure could be treated as
attacking someone behind cover, particularly for missile weapons, giving
a DX penalty depending on the size of the shield.
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body