Movement Rule Tweak

[BrotherBill]

What do you think about allowing figures to adjust their facing at the very end of the movement phase, after both sides have moved, with the side winning initiative setting facing last? The strict sequence of "side A moves its figures and selects their facing" followed by "side B moves its figures and selects their facing" (not the wording of the rules, but the way it works) is fast but it does not model actual movement and combat that well. Under the current system players end up counting hexes to either exploit or prevent the tactic of using the movement phase to run around behind the opponent. If facing were freely adjustable at the end of the movement phase, most of this problem would become moot, and players could focus more on playing the game than playing the rules. Your thoughts?

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by BrotherBill

What do you think about allowing figures to adjust their facing at the very end of the movement phase, after both sides have moved, with the side winning initiative setting facing last? The strict sequence of "side A moves its figures and selects their facing" followed by "side B moves its figures and selects their facing" (not the wording of the rules, but the way it works) is fast but it does not model actual movement and combat that well. Under the current system players end up counting hexes to either exploit or prevent the tactic of using the movement phase to run around behind the opponent. If facing were freely adjustable at the end of the movement phase, most of this problem would become moot, and players could focus more on playing the game than playing the rules. Your thoughts?

I always allowed this, for the reasons you cite. In addition, a single figure engaged by two enemy figures in his left front and right front hexes can find himself unable to attack if he loses initiative. The enemy figures each shift one hex into his flank. If he lost initiative, they get flank attacks and he can't respond. Allowing him to change facing prevents such an implausible occurrence.

[larsdangly]

If I can adjust my facing at the end of the movement phase, it means I can negate an advantage an opponent gained by cleverly gaming movement and position. But gaming movement and position is fun - it's arguably one of the very best things about TFT, and is certainly an important part of what makes its combat system fun.

If I changed movement and facing it would be to go in the other direction, making decision making in the movement phase even more consequential. Two simple changes: you can only attack through your front hex side (i.e., your left-front and right-front sides are some sort of 'side' hexes); and more weapons would be given ranges of 1,2 and (for long pole arms) 2,3. These two changes would make your decision making during movement extremely 'gameable' and juicy.

[tbeard1999]

I'd add that turning around is a pretty quick and simple action. It's hard to rationalize not being able to face an enemy in hand-to-hand combat merely because you "lost initiative". Now, if you are surrounded, then yes, you probably will have to let an enemy into your flank.

[larsdangly]

On the other hand, attacking a foe along a line at some angle to their 'central line' (natural line of attack) is a core principle of martial arts. And, whether or not you imagine you could immediately respond, it works. So, I think amping up the importance and value and 'game-y-ness' of movement is both good game design principles (because it makes the game more chess-like and fun), and is realistic. The main way you win at armed martial arts is by command of timing and distance. I think any game that removes the 'gaming' of timing and distance is both less fun and less realistic.

An old game I think does interesting things with these issues is Gladiator (Avalon Hill, ca. 1975). It's a nifty little board game that has things in common with Melee. Its scripted movement and combat is not suitable for the speed and style of play Melee is aiming at, but there are things to be learned from the way they handle range and positioning.

[Bayarea]

As long as it doesn't allow a polearm to receive the charge on his side of rear hex then I am fine with it.

Example Halberd starts 8 hexes away from swordsman, sword wins initiative make Halberd move first. Halberd closes the distance so sword can't get behind him and still attack. Sword does a long end around to avoid the auto charge rule ending either on his side hex or rear unable to attack due to moving more than half MA. If you allow the Halberd to pivot then the sword will always have to take charging damage.

[Jim Kane]

The Original 1977 Rule reads as follows on page 9: "VI. FACING Each figure faces one side of its hex, as shown by the direction the counter is turned. A player may change the facing of a figure whenever it MOVES, and may always change its facing at the end of its movement turn, even if it stayed in the same hex ."

HOWEVER, we found this was not only abused, but also took away from the pressure of choosing a final facing, choosing if you should move first or make the enemy move first when you win the initiative, and forced a player to consider their movement much more carefully with the option to "twist around" to a more favorable position taken-away.

The "Justification or Rational" we agreed on, was based on other TFT concepts, stating that: a) "Nothing Happens Simultaneously", and b) "A figure can only act or move when it's phase comes to act or move"; therefore way I personally referee a game, a figure is stuck with the facing he assumes at the end of it's movement phase - no "adjustment" of facing after-the-fact.

I know it is not the way the rule is written, but that was our way in our game; and was counted as 1 MA point expended for each hex facing change - So if a figure turned 180 degrees in place, that cost 3 MA right there.

JK

[JLV]

I've often thought that there should be some kind of Movement Point penalty for radical facing changes.

I guess I'd argue that changing your facing by one hexside would not be radical, but that two or more should burn a Movement Point.

Of course, then it becomes necessary to keep track of that, and in a large combat, with multiple characters being run by the same player (the GM, for instance), that could be a book-keeping headache...

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

The Original 1977 Rule reads as follows on page 9: "VI. FACING Each figure faces one side of its hex, as shown by the direction the counter is turned. A player may change the facing of a figure whenever it MOVES, and may always change its facing at the end of its movement turn, even if it stayed in the same hex ."

At the end of "its" movement, but if moving before enemies, the enemies then move.

If you allow a figure to face to react to enemy movement, then it becomes impossible for one figure to get to the side or rear of another unless there's some reason (e.g. a second threat, or a desire to place front hexes to block enemy movement if they move first next turn).

If you allow both sides to re-face at will after both sides move, then you need some way to make it stop or you might get into an endless response situation.

I think the existing rules work pretty well, but there is a bit of an odd situation sometimes where with open ground and high MA, you have to stay at a long distance if you move first if you want to avoid getting hit in the side or rear. It can get excessive with very high MA (e.g. due to the Speed Movement spell, fliers, or mounted figures).

I think normal-MA figures being able to flank each other as written adds something worthwhile, and I wouldn't try to remove it. However I think there might want to be some exceptions or something made for those with very high MA, or even an MA 1 Option that does let you change facing again after enemy movement, representing someone who wants to focus on staying facing enemies.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

If you allow both sides to re-face at will after both sides move, then you need some way to make it stop or you might get into an endless response situation.

Exactly SKARG.

As I say, I know it is not everyone's cup-of-tea, but our solution was to make each and every movement count for 1 MA. If you kept the same facing and advanced forward 1 hex, that was counted as 1 MA. If you remained in your current hex, but shifted one hex-face, that counted for 1 MA. If you advanced forward 1 hex AND shifted 1 hex-face, that was counted as 2 MA; etc, etc.

Again, I know some folks would detest that method, but as I said, we really liked it, and made the game even more Chess-like; in our experience - while cutting out all the arguments and people complaining about wanting to reposition their figure facing after the enemy had made a great flanking move, and endless oratories about why they "shoulda, woulda, coulda".... etc.

In short, you plotted your movement path on your turn, your paid the point-by-point MA cost, AND you lived with what your situation when the feathers hit the fan... no whining! ;-)

In the end, we really liked having to live with your decisions in battle - good or bad; with no recourse - like taking your hand off a Chess piece after you move it; that's it.

Also, it amped-up the atmosphere of tension of the Movement Phase, and cut-out people from simply running across a room willy-nilly at the enemy; and gave the PC's "cause to pause" as: Tacticians and Strategists who REALLY cared about winning and maintaining the Initiative at all possible costs. It also made those same two Talents a LOT more meaningful and valuable.

I know this level of hard-nosed play is not for most folks pallet; that was just our way.

JK