Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger
I also prefer Nils' method, because the tricks enabled by the canonical method feel gamey and unrealistic.
|
It has "gamey" features because it's a game and the tactics come from those features. It's not completely trying to model reality.
If you allow characters to always change facing after their own movement to adjust to changing conditions, that takes away some of the tactics inherent in the game.
In the RAW, you have to think carefully about what you do each turn. If you choose (or are made) to move first, you have some difficult choices:
1. If you can reach the opponent then you engage them and that greatly cuts down their tactical options, although if you've had to move over half your MA then you can't attack them and they can attack you.
2. You may choose to stay out of reach of the opponent. If you think you are more than half their MA away, then they may be able to reach you but not attack. However, you won't be certain of their MA and they may surprise you.
3. If you move close, but don't engage, then you're asking for trouble as they are likely to get on your flank or even rear if they have a high MA.
If you allow the free change of facing, then the third option isn't risky any more, and so you've reduced the tactical element of the game.
Now, I agree it's not "realistic" but there are plenty of unrealistic elements in the game. The question is, does playing by the RAW make a better game.
I've played both ways and I think the RAW makes a better game. It it's obviously a matter of taste.