06-20-2021, 04:01 PM | #21 | |||||
The Fantasy Trip Line Editor
Join Date: May 2021
|
Re: Defend and changing options
I see those points as relevant to your idea that Defend shouldn't be allowed as a response to an attack, and also relevant to your assertion that one figure will be doomed if outnumbered unless Defend works the way you suggest, but would be much more likely to survive if everyone were attacking.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The effects of expert or master defenders is another case to look at. The case with outnumbered but dangerous foes is also interesting, as is considering that adjDX sequence will make a big difference if you aren't using the Delayed Actions optional rule. Other cases that I think are relevant include with people who end up wasting entire turns defending against nothing and losing an entire turn, and figures who may end up pointlessly defending and getting shot, or pointlessly dodging and getting jabbed, if defenders must commit but attackers can freely choose whom/whether to attack. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
06-20-2021, 06:05 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Defend and changing options
Defending can actually be a good offense. Use Waiting for an Opening (ITL 127) to gain up to +2DX on a later attack. Defending doesn't have to be boring or a death sentence; it can be quite suspenseful, waiting to see if the extra die in your attacker's roll was a good gamble, and that sounds like great fun to me!
|
06-20-2021, 07:24 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Defend and changing options
This question can't be answered unless you specify when each of the two relevant characters (PC and animal tamer) 'acted'. The way the OP was written made it sound like the PC attacked and animal tamer defended in response. In that case, the PC is already committed and can't take back the decision to attack. If instead the animal tamer went first and chose 'defend', then he or she is committed to that. The point is, you are not committed to act until you actually act, and it is foolish to declare what you intend to do, or listen to what someone else says they intend to do, before they actually do it. There are constraints on the range of possible actions, depending on your position, engagement, movement during the movement phase, etc. But until you actually act you are not committed to anything. Once you act, you are fully committed and cannot take it back.
|
06-20-2021, 08:05 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Defend and changing options
Quote:
But I agree that when you say that you are taking an action, you have committed to it. |
|
06-20-2021, 09:07 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Defend and changing options
Yes, that's fine but it has no rules implications - it is just a way to psychologically manipulate an opponent who doesn't understand the game.
|
06-21-2021, 09:10 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Defend and changing options
It's pretty effective against players who know the game well, too!
|
06-24-2021, 07:20 PM | #27 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Defend and changing options
Quote:
The Romans had practice in how to exchange the first line of men for fresh soldiers from the second line, so their legionnaires could fall back and rest, and then get back into it when it was their turn to have a go again. And even if you have ranks eight or ten men deep, and even if everyone is just attacking every third turn because they are waiting for an opening, the fight would last less than a couple of minutes once you have contact between two formations. Since most units broke after taking 10 to 20% casualties. And most of those casualties would come from being ridden down from behind by cavalry after they broke. In short Melee fights are extremely lethal compared to reality. The same goes for two fencers that will most likely kill each other in less than 15 seconds. No "I am not left-handed either"- kind of fights. The last example not being realistic either of course, but still one type of fantasy. I am not sure if it would make Melee fights more fun, if they lasted longer. But the option should be there. My personal house rule is that you can counter attack when Defending, but you do it at -6DX. And Expertise and other ways of getting more dice while defending, lower that negative modifier instead. This means, that you never have more than 4 vs. DX to hit someone. But they will counterattack better and better if they are skilled. So two master Fencers attacking each other while they both defend do so at 4 vs. DX-2. The fight will come to an end fairly quickly, but not be over in 1 or 2 turns or last "forever" if one of them wants to prolong the fight. |
|
06-25-2021, 09:15 AM | #28 |
The Fantasy Trip Line Editor
Join Date: May 2021
|
Re: Defend and changing options
This could be a whole huge interesting topic, or several topics, about modelling large-scale battles, or about how to think about time spent in TFT combats, or how to resolve people attempting to delay combat with conversation, or about defensive fighting styles (such as the recent Hexagram article about that).
I'm not sure how or if you connect it to the topic of this thread? |
06-26-2021, 05:44 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Defend and changing options
Quote:
If you have to declare the Defend beforehand, risking that it goes to waste or just having the indirect effect of your attacker attacking someone else. You also get the bonus of Defending being declared by both sides, and in large-scale battles that would model why they take so long. Individuals, especially non-heroic ones might value survival over efficiency. An option that doesn't really come into it if you only defend when you are attacked. With the latter interpretation you will never have two persons defending at each other. |
|
06-26-2021, 09:00 AM | #30 | ||
The Fantasy Trip Line Editor
Join Date: May 2021
|
Re: Defend and changing options
Quote:
Quote:
I'd say that in actual combat, groups as well as individuals may also pause, so time may pass where some or all groups aren't actually even engaged. There may be things going on with group morale and leadership that uses more time than actual fighting, even after the opposing forces have squared off and some fighting has occurred. As Napoleon said, “In war, the moral is to the physical as ten to one.” Also, if both sides tend to have armor and/or shields and a typical weapon is a one-handed spear, many of the fighters are 30-32 points, and if typically when one person does attack, the target defends, that may not result in very fast casualties. (Lowish adjDX, 4/DX to hit, armor takes most/all of a hit.) If the ground starts having bodies on it, that too can reduce the rate of people attacking and hitting each other, as it can limit the places people are willing to fight from, or reduce their adjDX if they do stand on a body. The thing I have seen when playing that Defend and Dodge have to be pre-declared and commit a figure through the turn, is that the side who moves first (which already is often a serious tactical disadvantage by itself) also declares Defend and Dodge first, and those figures in many cases just get ignored by the other side wherever possible (or, if the GM insists they can't even switch Dodge with Defend or vice versa, the dodgers get charged and the defenders get shot). Which in turn means that people who realize that tend to just never Defend or Dodge unless they see nothing else worth doing. And even with Dodge/Defend as an option in response to attacks, I rarely see fighters use it unless they feel great danger from an attack, because they prefer to attack, and defending is a bit like losing a turn. Last edited by Peter von Kleinsmid; 06-26-2021 at 09:09 AM. |
||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|