Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith
Hi all,
On page 3 of Advanced Melee there is a rule that says, "... the GM may declare that a figure is not engaged - i.e., a knight in plate mail is not engaged by an unarmed 13 year old girl..." However, edge cases are harder to handle. If I stop 10 hits, and a goblin is doing 2d-1, should it engage me? (Not really I think. But what if I only stop 8 hits?)
I have added a tactic for characters to take. They may declare in movement that an enemy doesn't engage them, and move as if that enemy does not exist. (Or declare that several enemies do not engage them.)
The enemy so ignored gets a free attack with either +2 damage or +2 DX (enemies' choice). If you are chopped down as you try to leave the hex, ... well I guess you were engaged after all!
I'm not campaigning hard to have this rule included in the new TFT, but it is pretty simple and plays well. (I've been using it for years now.) It also removes some of the arbitrary force field 'feel' of the engagement rules. It might be worth a paragraph as an optional rule.
Comments are welcome.
Warm regards, Rick.
|
A good test would be to ask what the average damage would be, tripled. If it can cause injury, then the opponent is dangerous enough that he can't be ignored.
I don't like "free attack" rules ala D&D 3rd+. They slow the game down. Worse, they exploit knowledge that the character might not have. The player may clinically know that the opponent is a minimal threat, but in the heat of combat it's hard to imagine an experienced warrior exposing his back to *any* armed opponent.
Engagement was one of those concepts that "just worked". It enforced reasonable behavior and prevented player omniscience from generating unreasonable tactics.