10-23-2019, 01:51 AM | #41 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
But there is a way past the spear in a sense. I'm going to be assuming Skarg's interpretations so far as I understand them, because this largely reflects how I have played as well, but Skarg has clearly gained a great understanding of the downstream effects and potential tactics resulting from the core interpretations that I wish to elucidate for myself.
Let's look at a few cases: Case 1: Lower DX Polearm, No Delayed Actions Figure 1 with Broadsword, DX 12, Figure 2 with Spear, DX 11. Figure 1 moves up to 2 hexes away from Figure 2 (to do the rest of the actions, they must have started at 3 hexes away). When it is Figure 1's turn to act, they Disengage to step up to Figure 2. (Note: I'm not convinced RAW allows this except in the case where Figure 1 is engaged by some other Figure 3, but for my own sanity I must allow Figure 1 to perform Disengage or "Step" even when not formally engaged) Per Skarg, Figure 2 then gets to do a poleweapon defend against charge attack (presumably immediately). Case 2: Higher DX Polearm, No Delayed Actions Figure 1 with Broadsword, DX 11, Figure 2 with Spear, DX 12. Figure 1 moves up to 2 hexes away from Figure 2. When it is Figure 2's turn to act, they Jab Figure 1. Per Skarg, Figure 1 then gets to Disengage to step up to Figure 2. Next turn, they both start engaged and there will be no charge attacks. Case 3: Lower DX Polearm, Delayed Actions Figure 1 with Broadsword, DX 12, Figure 2 with Spear, DX 11. (However a similar equilibrium should result no matter who is higher DX). Figure 1 moves up to 2 hexes away from Figure 2. When it is Figure 1's turn to act, they would clearly delay their action as they cannot make an attack but they can do various useful things depending on what else happens in the turn (Disengage, Defend, wait for something else to change that opens up an attack somehow...) Figure 2 is then up, and can then Jab. But this seems a foolish move assuming 1 v 1 (or larger fights with current conditions that can be closely approximated by a 1 v 1 analysis) as they can always wait until Figure 1 chooses and then Jab if it is still necessary. If Figure 1 steps up they can instead get a defend against charge attack. How does one resolve the circling that results? Each figure is waiting for the other. My own intuition is that if both manage to delay until nothing else has happened, rule in favor of the defense and force Figure 1 to choose first or even default to Jab and Defend. Another possibility, especially if one generally forces characters to choose options fairly quickly (surely helps with realism, at least with one player per character), is that if neither wins the game of chicken then the turn just ends. I don't like that this could make jabbing quite rare outside of second lines in a shield-wall. |
10-23-2019, 04:05 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
Quote:
This reminds me of another pole weapon debate we had in the last few months, where one or two folk advocated exploiting the Disengage option to circumvent the pole weapon bonuses, defensive and otherwise (not saying you are advocating that, just pointing out this comes perilously close to re-opening that can of worms :) I empathize with your wish to maintain sanity. These rules are so perfect in so many ways, and then we all find a paradox or two that challenges our sense of reality. As a new house rule I could propose (I've never heard of this one before) would it overly unbalance the game if we simply allowed, as an option, anyone to move one more hex as their action??? Engaged figures get to do it when they choose Disengage. How bad would it really be if we allowed "Take One More Step" as an action for everybody? The logic would be, if a busily Engaged figure can use their turn to jump back one hex to avoid an attack, surely a Disengaged figure who chooses to do nothing else that turn would also have the time, energy, and ability to move that extra step as well. Some of the consequences could get interesting. That one extra step could result in Engaging an opponent who wasn't previously engaged, and had plans to move on the next turn, but now they are stuck being engaged. On the other hand if that opponent hadn't acted yet, they could decide to attack the first figure if the step brought them into a front hex. Interestingly the Disengage option would disappear from the game under this house rule. Choosing "Take A Step" on the turn to act would, for an engaged figure, accomplish the very same thing.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
10-23-2019, 01:10 PM | #43 | |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
Quote:
Since Figure 1's action comes first and he really just wants to wait instead of acting, maybe this is best simulated by him taking the Defend action without delay. In order to react to slower foes, in the game abstraction, Figure 1 may just need to do the aforementioned actions such as attacking or disengaging on the following turn. This two-turn-span approach may have similar effects anyway to trying to cram the anticipation all into one turn. Last edited by Tom H.; 10-23-2019 at 01:13 PM. Reason: Punctuation |
|
10-23-2019, 01:22 PM | #44 | |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
Quote:
|
|
10-23-2019, 02:39 PM | #45 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
Steve, yes several original-TFT players from different groups concluded that "Disengage" (i.e. moving one hex in any direction as an action) should be allowed even when not engaged, because:
* There's no logical reason why if an Engaged figure can do it, a Disengaged figure could not. * HTH attempts also allow moving one hex (into HTH) as an action. * A few other things do too (e.g. casting an Image or Illusion double on someone). * It makes no sense (in the game world) that you could not do this, except if some random other foe were engaging you, then you could. The consequences of allowing this however are having to answer this pole weapon question (which I think my answer is fine - it can create a new charge defense opportunity), AND that it means that someone who Disengages to get away from another figure who hasn't acted yet, can be pursued and re-engaged by that figure using the same option to follow them up. That means that in order to get away from someone in a one-on-one, you probably need to either Force Retreat on them, get them to take their action before you Disengage, or trip them... or else keep backing away and being followed at 1 hex per turn. As for the question of how to handle Delayed Actions, that is a question that comes up in various situations (not just this) when two or more figures are waiting for each other to act first. There are several ways to handle that. A few options that I like are: When the only figures who have not yet acted are all still Delaying, you can: A) Have those figures act in reverse adjDX order. They can take any legal action (or do nothing) but they can't Delay any more. or B) Ask those figures if they want to act, in adjDX order. They can still Delay. If one acts, then re-ask the remaining Delaying figures if they want to act, in adjDX order. If you get to the last Delaying figure and they don't act, then all the remaining Delaying figures waited the whole turn and took no action. or C) Do B) first, but if there are Delaying figures at the end, then do A) with them. I find that if I have one of these methods in mind, that I can resolve it pretty quickly. I just say "who acts?" and point at each player in turn expecting an immediate yes/no response. If the player hems and haws for more than a second, they wait and/or pass. |
10-23-2019, 07:26 PM | #46 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
There is something odd about unrestrained delayed actions.
Why would anybody choose to Dodge or Defend without delaying? You might as well wait to react to an actual attack. Do you always play it this way? |
10-23-2019, 09:03 PM | #47 | |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
House ruling to do away with Disengage altogether by replacing it with Extra Step seems logical and desirable. It will actually streamline the system.
Quote:
|
|
10-23-2019, 09:11 PM | #48 |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
Case 3:
The slower pole weapon user offered first action would probably step back one hex (disengage). Next turn will very likely give a one dice charge attack bonus, if not the +2 DX for receive charge as well. PS we always played disengage as an-action-which-allows-you-to-step-one-hex and it all seemed to work rather well. PPS I usually favored option b as well. He who hesitates gets to act next round! :) |
10-23-2019, 09:50 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
Quote:
As I mentioned before, ya there is almost never any real reason to pre-declare Dodge or Defend, just like there is almost never any actual reason to pre-declare any option except to communicate to (or to confuse) the other players. I don't see anything unnatural about it. Figures dodge/defend when there is some attack to dodge/defend. Not when they don't. The play flow is very natural. Figures move. Figures start to take actions. If someone wants to defend or dodge and can, they say so right after the attack is announced. And even if someone is expecting an attack, or even starting to jink around in anticipation, if no one is actually attacking them, it seems unlikely they're really going to be dodging nothing for five seconds and unable to do something more appropriate if there's a chance to do so. (If they even do at all - it's a relatively rare choice except when someone has nothing better to do or there's a really formidable attack coming. It's not like Dodge or Defend is a great powerful surprise option - it just makes them a bit harder to hit, and consumes their entire action for the turn - sometimes making someone Dodge or Defend is more effective than damaging them.) |
|
10-24-2019, 03:19 AM | #50 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Pole Weapons: Attack / Defense Question
It's actually all in how the GM runs the combat phases.
All I ever did was start each DX round by saying "I call for action from anyone with adjDX __ or higher." If we were on the DX 12 round, any player who hadn't acted yet could, as long as their DX was 12 or more. Then round 11, round 10, and so on. No one had to act until the round they waited for. If a DX 14 figure had waited until DX round 10 (perhaps to let a DX 11 figure go first) then they'd be the first figure to act after I said "I call for action from anyone with DX 10 or higher." And any time two players had waited for the same round and now both wanted to go at the same time, then they'd go highest adjDX first, and roll a die if they were tied. If there was no one left below DX 10, then the turn was over when that round ended. Period. A higher DX figure that had delayed action that long had simply skipped their chance to act. New turn, new initiative roll, new movement, and then the DX rounds start over at the highest adjDX again. Delayed actions just never complicated things in my group. We fought like cats and dogs over many things, but never that. All three of our GMs ran it just like this. We never even talked about this part of the game, it just felt like common sense.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|