Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999
Engagement was one of those concepts that "just worked". It enforced reasonable behavior and prevented player omniscience from generating unreasonable tactics.
|
That said, a referee might want a more cinematic combat system that resembles the swordfights in the 1982 Conan the Barbarian film or 300. Engagement does restrict that kind of fluid action.
A fast and playable system could probably be created that would model those movies; but it explicitly wouldn't be "realistic", so fiddly mechanics can be ignored.
Playtesting would be required, but here's how I could see it working. (Acknowledged that it has stuff that others have mentioned).
To start with, you could ignore engagement completely and go to a quasi-action point system. Figures would move, strike (maybe at say 2 movement point cost), move, strike, etc.
Allow non-moving figures to face any foe before the foe strikes. However, a figure must not turn to allow a figure already in his front hexes to be in his side or rear. So foes can be pinned.
Allow a figure to guard a hex - he can only move 1 hex or less to do this. He gets a shot at everyone who tries to move past him.
To really capture these films would require a different to hit system. Opposed attack rolls, with winner hitting. This is best done by Pendragon in my opinion. Roll d20; high roll that also is equal to or less than skill wins. Rolling exactly the number for success is a critical. With 3d6, something different would be needed - maybe whoever makes the roll by the most or somesuch.
This system might be interesting to play around with, but I always liked the tactical issues in TFT games. I don't think I'd want to replace it with this system.