09-12-2018, 11:24 AM | #41 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Facing
Having played the game for many years, it seems like people are worried about a problem that very rarely happened in our play. It's not rocket science to move so that you aren't exposing yourself to a run-around attack. If you take away the possibility, then maneuver becomes less interesting, not because side attacks happen a lot, but because you want to not move so foolishly so as to let them happen.
|
09-15-2018, 08:04 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New Jersey
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
|
|
09-15-2018, 09:30 AM | #43 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Facing
I don't think irrational 'run-around' attacks are really a thing in TFT. I can't remember when I've seen it done. The only arguments I've seen suggesting this is a problem were from people who mis-interpreted the rules. I don't think you could actually pull it off unless the target presented a side facing toward you at close range.
|
09-15-2018, 06:36 PM | #44 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
At 4:40ish, SJ could have been attacked in rear twice by running around moves after he engaged a little bit carelessly. SJ did point this out as a possibility, but didn't bother to count since it was a very casual game. And with almost no armor, SJ's guys would have been hit first and most likely gotten the -2DX mod or a possible knock down and that would drastically have changed the outcome. So even an old fox needs to take that extra time to count. And I am not sure that is the right kind of tactical thinking I want to do. I feel it is kind of artificial and un realistic. I would rather have a more exciting map, with more options and think about intuitive actions with advantages and disadvantage. Counting hexes each turn is just a repetitive chore for me. But I do agree that it is part of the TFT nostalgic experience. But it is a bad/tricky/gamey part in my opinion. So at least an alternative should be there as an optional rule or part of the simple rules. Otherwise new players (and possibly old players that lose their concentration or focus) will fall for gamey tactics. Not exactly a good first impression. |
|
09-15-2018, 06:58 PM | #45 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
I also likes Rick's -2DX penalty for a shift of facing. Another possible solution would be to use IQ for initiative, which goes well with the talent Tactics and Strategy that plays off of IQ. The big advantage would be that IQ hardly ever change in a fight. And one could solve the facing dilemma by including it in the actions, like shift 60 degrees and attack if you move half MA or less. Then a frontal, run around to the side, attacker would have to win initiative, have a good MA and be smarter than the opponent. IQ is slightly less important now that you can buy talents for XP without raising your IQ. And at the same time more important with the expertise talents (but only for some specific IQ levels). One could also allow the character who moves first, but choses to stand still, a post move facing change. |
|
09-15-2018, 08:38 PM | #46 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
|
|
09-16-2018, 09:53 AM | #47 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
i.e. The correct move would be for Steve's left-flank to face one side more left, and for his third figure to go stand two hexes south of his middle figure, facing SE, which would present a complete wall of Front-only hexes all across the Melee map. |
|
09-16-2018, 08:20 PM | #48 | |||
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
The perception roll might be easier if someone with Tactics shouts a warning. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
09-18-2018, 02:17 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
I like the -1DX per hex side turned. I didn't mean for an opposed IQ roll for who gets initiative, I mean to use IQ instead of DX for action or turn order. Since IQ doesn't change as much as DX during the turn. |
|
09-18-2018, 02:24 PM | #50 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Facing
Quote:
But the situation was less strange than the straight one on one, that starts with a rear or side attack as the first attack. :-) |
|
|
|