04-05-2018, 03:19 AM | #91 | |
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
Re: Options and actions.
Quote:
I have NEVER seen this happen. However, even with your rules, an immature player could say, "I'm going to attack A. No! I'm going to attack B. No! I'm going to attack A! No Wait! I'm going to attack B. ..." If you expect players to shout out immature, time wasting things, to delay the game, you need LOTS more rules, than just adding rules that says you can only change options during the action phase, and only during your turn to act. Yes during movement you can change your option. (The changing option rules do NOT say it must be done during the action phase, I note.). But who will decide to change actions during movement? In practice very few people. I have seen characters do weird movement (attacking when everyone expected them to run), and the players say after that movement, "I'm going to defend." But this happens rarely, and for logical reasons. I think that there is no point adding a restriction to the rules on page 4, simply to fix a non-existent problem. But as you suggest, there no harm if Steve Jackson comments to this thread and lets us know what he intended. And yes, you are quite right. It is not a dominate strategy to always declare defend first, under your rules. You might not want to get locked into a defend. Warm regards, Rick. |
|
04-05-2018, 02:52 PM | #92 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
My Melee, Wizard and Advanced Melee all refer to Options chosen before movement (and changeable after Movement, limited only by MA used during movement). Fortunately, you figured out how it must work even with that even-more-confusing edit. |
|
04-05-2018, 04:06 PM | #93 | |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
I also see, if not interpreted that way, a round and round again situation with "I'm going to attack", "Well, then I'm going to defend", "Then I'm changing to defend", "Well, then I'm going to attack", etc Who doesn't want to declare last in this infinite regress of changing options? And as another example, if one can only Shift and Attack while *staying* engaged, then one cannot shift from a front hex to a side hex and attack. That's really counterintuitive. Having to perhaps then change your option to move half and attack seems a bit odd. Makes much more sense to allow a shift and an attack even if not then engaged, but perhaps, *engaging* someone. We wouldn't play with the backward interpretation of having to *be* engaged to be able to attack, but merely engaging someone. Last edited by Kirk; 04-05-2018 at 05:08 PM. |
|
04-05-2018, 11:31 PM | #94 | |||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
Quote:
During the ACTIONS stage of a turn, figures act in order of adjDX. Once someone declares an attack action (not Option), they are committed to doing it and can no longer change. And it's a new relevant circumstance so the victim can choose to Defend, or not. There is no back and forth. Quote:
|
|||
04-06-2018, 02:34 AM | #95 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
|
|
04-06-2018, 09:02 AM | #96 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
And if you want to defend, just wait until someone actually says they are going to attack, the call out defend. They then can change their option and say they are going to attack someone else, then you can say now you want to attack, then they say then they will defend, and so forth. And if it isn't their time to act anyway, it's all just wasted time. Seems to me it just boils down to declaring your option when you actually have the microphone and aren't just someone in the crowd shouting out. I don't see anything in the rules that says you can't change your option right before someone affects you (if you don't use our interpretation), nor do I see where it says you can't change multiple times until you actually take an option. Quote:
Shift and Attack. The GM argued two points, first was that by shifting to the side I was in effect executing a Shift and Disengage, and secondly that Shift and Attack was only for *engaged* characters, and by moving to the side, I was no longer engaged and so could not select that option. So again I say, SJ needs to clarify how he wants this game to work. The way we do it works well, seems supported by the rules if one understand the problems with other interpretations, and I have never known anyone who doesn't play that an initial option is chosen, and when a character *can actually do something* at their adjDX, possibly change what they were going to do based on their current situation and time spent moving. |
||
04-06-2018, 11:03 AM | #97 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
My memory of the discussion of this that the TFT email list went through a few years ago was it went about like this: * SJ writes the first version(s) of Melee. * SJ writes the first versions of Wizard, which is necessarily a bit more complex and also adds a few corrections and improvements. One thing it adds is the CHANGING OPTIONS section. * SJ writes 1-2 versions of Melee that include some of the changes/improvements in Wizard. (e.g. the version I have, which is the third one shown here in this chronological show of Melee covers.) * SJ writes the TFT RPG-context books In The Labyrinth, Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard which include the CHANGING OPTIONS wording from Wizard and are more or less an expanded version of the Wizard rules at that point. * SJ parts ways with Metagaming. * The Codex comes out with a few rule-relevant tidbits as interpreted by the new Metagaming TFT editor. * A few more editions of Melee and Wizard come out, in boxes with black & white booklet covers (fourth image in the link above). These start to adjust the rules a bit, including the 3-hex "straight line" requirement for pole weapon damage bonus, a pre-Wizard version of some rules seemingly accidentally showing up again in Melee, and apparently this wording change that seems to be trying to avoid using the word "Options", I assume for an attempt at simplicity. * Metagaming also publishes its Underearth titles and indicates a corresponding desire to try to release simpler rules, but seem IMO to clearly also lack the attention to detail & concise language that SJ used, and introduce what I see as issues. I think the attempt to remove the term Options and call everything an Action is part of that desire (by people who IMO didn't really have a very clear/concise detailed analytical understanding/appreciation of all of SJ's TFT rules' details) to try to simplify the rules. Of course, people can and do choose what rules to prefer, or just use the rules they have, and to play as they like or remember the rules, which is fine. There certainly are people (q.v. some on the TFT email list) who still run TFT and use basic Melee. Personally, I think the versions right before SJ left Metagaming are the best versions, and I prefer Advanced Melee to Melee for almost everything, occasionally checking pre-SJ-departure versions of Wizard or possibly Melee when I'm not certain what the intent of the wording is. Last edited by Skarg; 04-08-2018 at 11:19 AM. Reason: typo fixes |
|
04-06-2018, 11:46 AM | #98 | |||||||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
Quote:
Usually there really is no need to declare your option before your action! As long as you obey the rules and don't move too far for the Option you want, the only solid reasons I see to declare your Option are: * To decide to Dodge or Defend before your own adjDX lets you take an action. (The combat example in Melee shows this being done.) and some "soft" but not insignificant reasons: * To learn and understand the Option and Engagement requirements to be able to take certain actions, when you are a new player and trying to understand how those limits work (which I believe is the real reason why the rules were written that way in the first place). * To give the GM & other players a chance to notice and point out if you are mistakenly intending to do something against the rules. * To coordinate intentions with other players on your own side. Notice than almost nowhere in the examples of play do players declare their Option at the start of their turn. They're just said to Shift or Move a certain distance, and in a couple of cases they do Defend when their adjDX is lower than the opponents' that attack them, which still causes the +1 die to hit. Their choice of what to do is just described as a choice of what to do given the circumstances and how far they moved during the Movement phase. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Skarg; 04-06-2018 at 11:54 AM. |
|||||||
04-06-2018, 02:42 PM | #99 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
|
08-06-2018, 08:24 AM | #100 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges
So have I gotten this right?
The new rules for charging would be: You charge, but you need 3-hex in a straight line. First backing up and then charge is allowed. When I attack I will get first strike, but no +2DX and I will do +1 die damage. If I get engaged while wearing a pole arm I get a set vs. charge if I face my opponent at the time of my attack. If I only moved 0 or 1 hex I get a +2 DX, I will strike first and I will get the +1 die damage. If I move half MA and then my opponent engage me I will get a set vs. charge, with first strike and +1 die damage, but no +2DX since I moved too much. An enemy can pick the Defend option at any time, but it will not nullify my charge bonus damage, first strike (in case there are others involved) or my set vs. attack DX bonus (if I only moved 0 or 1hex and he engaged+defended me). But I will have to roll 4 dice vs. DX. I need to extrapolate the rules and chance for a charge for my sim calculations. I basically need three (%)values: Initial Chance: After a forced retreat: After a disengage (if you have higher DX and won't lose an attack doing it): After knocking someone prone: Should be 100% if your MA is at least 10. And a good rule of thumb for taking the Defend option. Always or just sometimes, if so, when? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|