Facing

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

...The rest of the advantages you state I don't see...

As I stated in my opening sentence: "I am going to be the odd-man-out on this topic; as I don't suspect many - if any of you - will like our method."

So, the *good news* is that since I am not trying to promote the method, no one has to like it, approve of it, or even understand it. So, if you "can't see" the rest of the advantages, I cannot help you; other to say, perhaps you should play-test the method for yourself rather than trying to judge it from a read-through.

Perhaps *that* might be the reason why you "cannot see it"; you might have to actually experience it - *in play*.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

All you do is basically lower everyones MA and thereby make MA bonuses more important and chances for gamey tricks less. But a lower MA is less tactical and the game will be a lot easier to predict since everyone can do less different things.

Well, that's your perception. Our perception were all the benefits listed by bullet-point - as outlined in the OP.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

Or did I misunderstand something?

Apparently.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

How did this make the tactics talents more important or how did you get more tactical choices?

As stated in the Original Post, the ability to win the initiative - and force the other side to move first, usually - becomes even more critical under this method; therefore, as a direct consequence the Tactics and Strategist talents (when taken together) add +2 to the *now* critical Initiative Roll...hence, "more important".

I never wrote anything about "more tactical choices"; I have no idea where you read that claim.

Anyway, I hope that answers your questions.

JK

[flankspeed]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

That's not the way I play it. If you go first, you need to ancipate your foe's likely actions. If engagement is being used properly, it will be difficult for anyone to run behind you unless you have invited it.

Of course, everyone is free to make any house rules they desire, but I support Steve's interpretation for the official rules-as-written. His method fosters both strategic and tactical thinking.

The Initiative roll and any Talents that add a bonus to Initiative are crucial. Role players who design their characters as experienced military commanders need to provide a noticeable edge in combat that is valuable to the party. Helping win the Initiative is a critical part of a commander's role.

Maintaining the highest DX possible in order to act earlier in the turn order is also part of maintaining the balance between low-ST/high-DX characters and high-ST/low-DX characters. The best defense is a good offense, and the best offense is to hit them before they can hit you, either due to range or speed or surprise.

The Engagement rules are also vital to the flow of tactical combat. It is often advantageous to win Initiative in order to let the opponent go first and react to their movement, or to know when to seize the moment and close the distance to Engage before the enemy can move.

I hope Steve will correct the following if I'm wrong. I believe that if a character with a high enough Movement Allowance can avoid becoming Engaged while using only half their MA to move around an enemy who has already moved and end up in that enemy's Side or Rear hex, then the character has "outmaneuvered" their enemy and would indeed get to attack that turn at +2 or +4 DX while the enemy would be unable to change facing or to attack.

This means that even in a one-on-one duel, a fighter must approach their opponent very carefully and not close the distance recklessly. It is very important to maintain the highest MA possible, and then to utilize that movement very wisely. I am pretty sure Steve intended it to be this way in order to balance the game between the skillful-and-swift versus the strong-but-slow.

[zot]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

In fact, I'd be happy if the new edition provided even more options for out maneuvering people. Two rules I've used in house-editions are: 1) you can only attack through your front hex side, not your front three hex sides; and 2) lots of weapons have range 2 rather than 1. The combination of these makes every move tricky and interesting, particularly when there are several combatants (and I avoid it turning into total nonsense by permitting a kind of 'attack of opportunity' option where you can take a swipe or shot at someone as they move through a hex you can target).

I made a MORE tactical options thread with some other ideas on this...

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

As I stated in my opening sentence: "I am going to be the odd-man-out on this topic; as I don't suspect many - if any of you - will like our method."

I never wrote anything about "more tactical choices"; I have no idea where you read that claim.

Anyway, I hope that answers your questions.

JK

Sorry if I came off overly antagonistic. It was not my intention. And I have tried your type of movement in other games, but not specifically in TFT. But I think I can extrapolate the experience accurately enough.

I really don't see some of your points, the opposite actually. But it is a digression from the main question so I will leave it be for now. I am glad you guys liked it and used it to keep TFT fresh. :-)

[Nils_Lindeberg]

The rule for avoiding a stab in the back. The tactical choice so to speak is mainly this:

If you go first don't end your movement in the backstabbing or sidestabbing zone.

The backstabbing zone is not the same in every direction strangely enough. A straight hex line will make it smaller and if there are zig-zagging hexes between you, it will be bigger even though the distance is the same!?!

If you go first and close to 5 hexes since your have MA 10 and there is a zigzag line to your opponent. He needs only MA 12 to side stab you. That is a mere 2 more of MA (4 for a backstab). And that will determine the fight most likely. A +2DX attack from him and no return attack from you is usually devastating.

If you go first and close to the same 5 hexes, but in a straight hex-line instead. Your opponent would need MA 16, or 6 more MA than you, to sidestab you when you move into range.

If you don't have the MA to close safely, even in a straight line. Don't close when you go first.

Kind of strange that such things should matter in a game that chooses to use hexes because it usually eliminates the problem of diagonals in a square grid. :-)

The reason for this strangeness is the three front hexes. When your opponent is not straight ahead you have to face him slightly off center and that leaves a side door open for attack.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

I have tried your type of movement in other games, but not specifically in TFT. But I think I can extrapolate the experience accurately enough. I really don't see some of your points, the opposite actually.

As you attest that you have not actually play-tested our method for TFT - neither in the isolation of the Melee arena, nor down In The Labyrinth (where it really counts) - therefore, your evaluation comes as no surprise to me.

JK

[Terquem]

I've played a lot of games. I like the way the rules are, as they are written now.

I have found that when it comes to rules in role playing games

Players want changes in rules that prevent something stupid (in their opinions) like being stabbed in the back because the other figure moves after their figure moves

Players do not want changes in the rules that restrict something awesome (in their opinion) like stabbing the other guy in the back because their figure moved after the other guys figure.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by Terquem

Players do not want changes in the rules that restrict something awesome (in their opinion) like stabbing the other guy in the back because their figure moved after the other guys figure.

Since almost all rules in TFT can be used against you as well as by you against others, you argue for no changes at all?

When doing a house rule, minimalism is a worthy goal. It is not enough to be just a little better, since every house rule will cause some confusion for new players in the group, an extra paper to read and one more thing to keep track of.

But now that we have the opportunity to make house rules into RAW, then just a little better is good enough.

And RAW when it comes to facing in this regard is both unrealistic, limits high MA since it breaks the mold, it adds unnecessary simple calculations that might scare away new players and bore experienced players and it is weird to boot since 5 hexes away isn't always the same as 5 hexes away, in an otherwise empty room.

But I have had my say. And I got the answer from SJ and others, so I am happy. And it is an easy rule to keep as a house rule for our local group if it doesn't make it into the rules. :-)

[Chris Rice]

5 hexes away shouldn't always be the same. 5 hexes away facing something slow moving like a slime or giant slug is very different tactically from facing something quick moving like a wolf or Elven spearmaster. I think the RAW bring that out, in a stylised way it's true, but they do bring it out.

[Skarg]

While it's true that in reality it doesn't take much time to change facing, it does take a change of focus and attention, and you can only face one direction at a time.

In reality it is also quite possible for people in a multi-figure struggle to get around to the side or rear of someone and gain an advantage on them. Consider American Football, for example, particularly a quarterback and the people trying to run through and around the line to get to him - although he can and often does manage to face and react to people charging him, sometimes he fails to notice or avoid someone coming from his side or even rear.

Anyway, it seems to me that in TFT, the movement and facing rules as written give an abstract way to show the possibility of that sort of out-maneuvering. If you end up letting a foe into your side or rear hex, it's probably not that you can't turn fast enough, but whatever you were doing ended up with them getting a position advantage on you, so that they got to act before you were able to notice and react. The situation of being in a fight is different from looking down on a map board and moving all your figures during a movement phase.

If you allow figures to change facing after movement, then side/rear situations would almost never occur unless someone gets surrounded.