thrown weapons and facing

[Terquem]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Is there a case that tossing a dagger from a long ways off gives the target more time to dodge?

There may always be a case for "nuance"

but is it a good case?

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Is there a case that tossing a dagger from a long ways off gives the target more time to dodge?

Certainly less of one than for giving thrown weapon attacks a facing bonus, which is the subject of the OP.

[hcobb]

Isn't the facing bonus due to a superior reaction speed advantage over the defense? Therefore you can't apply this from a distance.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Isn't the facing bonus due to a superior reaction speed advantage over the defense?

Not to my way of thinking. Rather, I've always thought of it as a benefit due to the target's inability to clearly see the attack coming. Admittedly, TFT's relatively low-res mechanics do have the strange effect of adding to speed when giving a to-hit bonus, but I don't think it is particularly realistic.

Therefore you can't apply this from a distance.

That does not logically follow; indeed, an arrow loosed from a bow will almost certainly be faster than a spear thrust or quarterstaff blow. The prohibition against missile weapons getting the bonus has never made sense to me, despite its being part of the game since the beginning.

But, more importantly, where under the description of thrown weapon attacks is there any mention of their being an exception to the facing bonus rule, as there so clearly is with missile weapons? Rules are laid out such that patterns are introduced and exceptions to those patterns are noted. It stands to reason that if an exception isn't noted, it isn't an exception.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

But then you'd have to give +1 to attacks along the spine of the Font/Side hexes.

LOL! Oh goodness nothing is as easy as it seems.

Okay, let's try this revised logic then:

The bonus begins with a +2 through the side hexes, then goes up 1 as you work your way backwards: +3 for the midway point, then +4 for the extreme rear.

Although come to think of it, I wouldn't have a problem with that +1 for the spine between a front and side hex. Geometrically, that is coming in with the jab exactly 90 degrees from the line the target is facing, which is as perpendicular as perpendicular can be :)

[Shostak]

Would you then impose a -1DX penalty to attacks made into a hex along the Front/Side spine? That would make sense, but it would also definitely contradict the rules.

[larsdangly]

there are several 'tweaks' to the rules for facing, engagement and reach that would radically open up the tactical decision making at ranges under 5 hexes; some I've experimented with or considered:

- As discussed here, provide more shades of grey to facing; the only thing that would really add interest (in my mind) is having the front-side hex sides work differently from your direct-front hex side. Such as, a reflexive +2/-2 DX penalty for attacks coming into or going out of one of your front-side hex sides. So, you can fight people at a ~60 degree angle from your center line, but you do so with the same kind of penalties as fighting someone who is a couple feet above you. This feels quite fair and realistic to me.
- Give a higher fraction of melee weapons ranges of 2 and 3 hexes, but impose penalties to the use of most of them at a range of 1 hex (so that 1-hex range takes on something of the character of HTH but without all the rolling on the ground)
- heretical as it sounds, allow people to bypass engagement if they have the space to do so without entering someone's hex and if they accept a free attack of opportunity from the person who would have engaged them. This is not really so heretical, as something like this can happen when you try to enter HTH.
- Break up the movement into two or more segments. Even just having a pre- and post-action movement phase would do a lot to add complexity to the tactical decision making process.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Would you then impose a -1DX penalty to attacks made into a hex along the Front/Side spine? That would make sense, but it would also definitely contradict the rules.

No, not at all. That's why, to avoid misinterpretation of the proposal, I used italics in this part of my wording:

"The bonus begins with a +2 through the side hexes..." and goes up as you move towards the rear. And that's also one less exception to the RAW.

[Steve Plambeck]

Yes, after last night I started thinking along the same lines as larsdangly.

First I'd just envisioned what the diagram would be if the target figure was surrounded by 12 jabbing figures each 2 hexes away. Going clockwise starting with the jab coming through the very front hex (no DX bonus) the progression could be +1 for the next assailant (jabbing along the spine between two front hexes), then +2 for the next jab coming directly through the side hex, +3 for the next spine, +4 through the rear, then back to +3, +2, and +1 as you completed the circle, coming back to 0 for the jab coming from straight ahead.

Now imagine if those jabs weren't jabs at all! Instead they become regular melee attacks now made from 2 hexes away. If it was decreed that hexes were only 2 feet wide, or even smaller, then adjacent figures would be almost belly to belly, and too close to swing at each other. Only dagger attacks (and punches) could be made from adjacent hexes. Now there's no stacking needed for HTH. And all regular attacks get made from 2 hexes away following the 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +3, +2, +1 DX adjustment progression. Why that's brilliant I thought!

But no, you couldn't and wouldn't call it TFT anymore. We've invented a very, very different game. With the staggering imbalance though that 1 figure could be attacked by 12 at once -- LOL!

Worse, the pole weapon jab becomes a 3 hex jab, and there are 24 hexes 3 hexes from the target in the center. Plus the 12 attackers from 2 hexes away, we'd need armor that stops at least 75 hits per attack to make that fight last into a 2nd turn.

Gee, it started out sounding like a good idea. Let's forget the whole thing and just play TFT instead :)

[larsdangly]

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to count spines as distinct from hex sides; it is a pretty fiddly thing to impose rules on, and you will have a similar overall effect if you just follow the existing implicit principle that an attack delivered exactly along a hex spine can choose which of the adjacent two hexes dictate the modifiers (e.g., this is how blocking terrain works)