Re-envisioning the MACE & CHAIN (Flail, aka: Morningstar) in TFT

[Jim Kane]

As the situation stands now in TFT, aside from the minimum ST requirement, and the damage delivered, there is effectively no play-difference between a Mace and a Morningstar - aside from the fact that the Mace may be thrown.

To me, the key PLAY element of a flail (Mace & Chain) which I would like to see put under reconsideration, so as to differentiate it from a "Ball on Stick" Mace, would be something along the lines of:

1) Give the flail user a DX to-hit bonus when attacking a figure who is using a shield; thereby reflecting the ability of the flail to "wrap" over/around the shield of the target - rendering the shield less effective; and the defender more vulnerable to attack when standing against a flail.

Thoughts?

JK

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

As the situation stands now in TFT, aside from the minimum ST requirement, and the damage delivered, there is effectively no play-difference between a Mace and a Morningstar - aside from the fact that the Mace may be thrown. ...

1) Give the flail user a DX to-hit bonus when attacking a figure who is using a shield; thereby reflecting the ability of the flail to "wrap" over/around the shield of the target - rendering the shield less effective; and the defender more vulnerable to attack when standing against a flail.

Thoughts? JK

Hi Everyone, JK.
I dislike giving DX bonuses since it aggravates the Attribute Bloat problem. I would rather that the flail type weapons wrap around the shield, lowering its protection. I would give the defender with a shield a DX roll to prevent this from happening.

All that said, I doubt that the new TFT will so differentiate the weapons.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

There's another thread here with various ideas for making standard melee weapons have more distinctions from each other. The original rules pretty conspicuously don't do much of that. I like the idea of adding such ideas, as long as they're balanced and make sense, but it's also a pretty big departure from the standard rules. As such I think it might fit best as an optional system.

As a stand-alone adjustment, I don't think your specific suggestion fits in well with the existing set of weapons. For one thing, there are nearly no other weapons which get a + DX adjustment to hit, and it doesn't seem to me like that really matches the advantage of an actual mace & chain. Should it be easier for a mace & chain to hit someone with a shield than to hit someone without a shield? (It's also simply a flat advantage with no trade-offs. Unless every weapon gets some improving qualities, it would be adding a strength out of proportion with the other weapons.) If trying to represent the ability of wrapping around a shield, I'd expect it to reduce (but not eliminate) the effect of a shield, and to come with some other disadvantage (such as being harder to hit with in general, and/or having some risk of hitting oneself as I typically do when I try to swing a ball & chain...).

[Chris Rice]

I don't understand why you would give a DX bonus against shields. Shields don't work in TFT by reducing the attackers DX, they work by reducing the damage taken when hit. If you give a DX bonus you're making it easier to hit someone with a shield than without a shield. Ignore the shields damage absorption if you wish but no DX bonus 😬

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I don't understand why you would give a DX bonus against shields. Shields don't work in TFT by reducing the attackers DX, they work by reducing the damage taken when hit. If you give a DX bonus you're making it easier to hit someone with a shield than without a shield. Ignore the shields damage absorption if you wish but no DX bonus ��

Great question Chris! - and here is a great answer (I hope! LOL!)

As I thought about the various simple ways one could differentiate the flexible-nature of the Mace & Chain from the Ball-on-Stick Mace, I watched a documentary on these weapons for a bit of research, and low-and-behold, the researcher asserts, that due to the edge of the shield acting as a fulcrum, the shield ends up turning the Mace-and-Chain into a miniature and fixed TREBUCHET of sorts, and in point-of-fact, aids the attacker in making his attack only in cases when the target is using a shield. The take-away is that the shield is what aids the flail in enjoying an enhanced effectiveness according the documentary - as a shield's edge provides the fulcrum for the chain.

So, armed with this eye-opening revelation, there was 2 immediate paths to look at:

1) First would be to (as usual) assign some form of penalty/diminishment to the Defending Figure when facing a Flail. Well, this felt odd for a number of reasons; so I looked elsewhere.

2) Taking a cue from Page 18 of Advanced Melee where a +2DX bonus is given to the user of a specific weapon in a specific situation, which states: "A figure which stands still (or simply changes facing) and uses a pole weapon against a charge attacker gets a +2DX.", it seemed that it would be in perfect concert to postulate a specific flail rule, which states:[/I] "A figure which uses a flail weapon when attacking an opponent who is using a shield gets a +2DX."[I]

Thoughts?

JK

[Chris Rice]

I can see the logic in that, but if you're going to go down that route I'd prefer the chain flail to be a "peculiar weapon" and require a specific talent to use. I'd probably go with something simpler like "ignores shield bonus and can strike at one -hex range (like a spear) but do a bit less damage. Or perhaps it should be more awkward to use at close range and get a DX penalty (I've thought if that as a counter to polearms as well). Interesting.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I can see the logic in that, but if you're going to go down that route I'd prefer the chain flail to be a "peculiar weapon" and require a specific talent to use.

My thinking as well Chris; and not just a unique Talent, but perhaps also with an additional DX minimum to use properly.

This brings us to the 2nd bit about flails which the presenter brought forward - and seems a bit counter to how TFT normally handles weapons which need to be re-readied after an attack.

In short, as long as the chain and ball-head(s) of the flail (be they spiked or not) stay in motion, a flail would attack every turn; HOWEVER, when the chain and ball-head of a flail land firmly (i.e. scores a hit for actual damage) on a target, it kills the momentum of ball-heads, and the weapon then must be re-readied, having lost it's momentum - again, according to the presenter of the film.

So what is implication of that?

If we were to interpolate the researcher's conclusions into TFT, we might extrapolate the following:

1) By keeping the chain and flail ball-head(s) in motion, a flail would attack every turn without the need to re-ready after a miss;

However,

2) The "flail" would "require one turn to ready" only AFTER a successful to-hit roll, which put hits ON a figure After Shield absorption and before Armor Subtraction; simulating the chain and ball-head(s) by-passing the shield and coming to a full stop on impact against the opponent;

And,

3) Treating those flail attacks which are fully absorbed by the shield, yet have no hits in the damage roll left to apply to the figure itself, as: "Glancing Blows off the shield" - which did not fully stop the motion of the ball-heads - hence, no need to re-ready the flail; simulating an unsuccessful attempt to wrap over/around the Defending figure's shield.

In Sum: A flail user would only be able to score a damaging blow against a figure EVERY OTHER TURN; but, the flail-user can attack every turn - provided the chain and ball-head(s) are kept in motion after a miss or non-effective attack.

Thoughts?

JK