Movement Rule Tweak

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Wow,... Holy Random Synaptic-Connections, Batman! Do you recall HT's "take-that parting-shot" entitled: A Fistful of Turkeys, by "Some Turkey Games"? Such draaaaama back in the day LOL!

Yeah, one of my close friends and quasi-codesigner of A Fistful of TOWs is Dave Burnett, one of the designers of Turkeys. So the connection is explicit.

For my game, the name started as a joke, then I kept it because I liked it. And it suggested the title of the sequel - For a Few TOWs More.

[Jim Kane]

TY I just watched a nearly 20 minute first impression report on YouTube about your game, wherein the guy featured your hardbound rulebook for TOWs3. Very complimentary:"...468 pages, and not one of those pages is wasted...". Nice.

TY can we get a "weigh-in" from you on the "De-Fang the pole-weapon" and "Option II c: Defend" concepts which KIRK and I are exploring?

Thanks.

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Let's see, for the move half and defend, I don't think we ever saw that as an option or in the list of available options for characters, so you can't approach a spearman that way. If you start unengaged, then you must choose from those options, then execute the movement portion of that option, then go according to DX, changing your option is possible then, but pole weapon getcha first. Charging someone then pulling full stop and defending is a tough move, so not being able to do that makes sense to us, and it's how the rules read.

(As mentioned in another thread) this is not how we read the rules. You can change your option to react to circumstances, limited only by MA used, and the Changing Options rule in Wizard and AM says: "if you moved 1/2 your MA or less, you may attack, defend, or dodge, or drop".

As for moving 1/2 MA (like 1.3 meters per second - "charging?") and Defending being a "tough move" - why would that be any harder than moving and attacking?

Originally Posted by Kirk

If players interpret being able to alter your option before your turn to act comes, that is slightly different, but still allows a deadly 4 d6 vs. DX, many times giving a 15 vs. 4 dice possibility, more than half a chance.

Yes, the way Defend merely raises the roll on the attacker's DX to 4 dice and doesn't scale with defender's ability at all, gets overpowered by high DX and becomes a non-issue. Works ok for 32-point fighters, but less and less well as high DX gets involved.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

If you charge him, he is at +2 and the rules say he goes first, regardless of your DX. Sux to be you, even against a ST 11 spear that will do *average* total damage of 11 hits, and max damage of 16! That's assuming 1+2 damage, which I think was two-handed, wasn't it? If not, then 1+1 doubled, then, almost as big, and even against a beginning character with DX 13 becoming 15, he is probably going to hit you, possibly knock you down, and maybe kill you outright.

Spears do 1+1, or 1d one-handed, except in an early printing of basic Melee. But yes, pole weapons do a lot of damage in a charge.

Originally Posted by Kirk

I like adding the ability to go according to DX if you decide to attack the point of the weapon to pass it. All of my martial training had me working to pass the point, to get inside his range.

No damage to its owner, and a small chance of damaging the spear, but allowing someone to possible close with the spearman without getting hit, assuming he has a higher DX, which often is still not true.

I like that idea too... and I also like it for use against all weapons... (i.e. I like active defenses.)

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

KIRK, You are correct. I improperly stated the example AND assigned the 1/2 move to the wrong fighter in my narrative description - my bad 2x.
...
Interesting this: In the way I misstated the example, there would have to be Option II c: Dodge or Defend - which there is not; as you correctly pointed out - But perhaps there should be?

No, I would say you were fine the first time. See the rule on Changing Options in Wizard and Advanced Melee. Defend can be done after moving 1/2 MA. My reading is just that the Options for Disengaged Figures doesn't list Defend, because it's copying the format from Melee trying to explain the concept of Defend being usable against hand weapon attacks not ranged attacks.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

So now that I have the example part to the question now properly formed, l will ask the question again: Does the Defend option not offer a satisfactory tactic to nullify the Charge Bonus and close with the enemy?

I think it's ok for beginning point characters, but becomes increasingly less satisfactory against higher-DX pole-weapon-users (i.e. high level characters, as the attacker chances increase without regard to the defender's skill).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

WHAT IF we were to expand Option IIc to include DEFEND?; ...

Or just read the Changing Options rule and realize it already is an option.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Could this little addition of allowing a figure to Defend as they move-in on a Pole-Weapon user, be a potential solution? Could a serviceable "fix" be that simple and unobtrusive?

No, because it's not a change and it doesn't work so well for high-DX pole-weapon users.

Originally Posted by Kirk

One way to think about it is to list the advantages a sword at ST 11 has *over* a spear. Hmmm....I hear crickets, but not much else! Only the slight increase in damage is to be had, 2-1 vs. 1+2 in regular attacks, let's not even discuss 1+2 axes, that list is even shorter, except perhaps for chopping down wooden doors and such.

A spear does 1d when used one-handed, like a one-handed 1d+2 small axe or 2d-1 shortsword. 1d+1 is two-handed damage, except in a particular printing (or 2?) of basic Melee. Also a fighter with a one-handed axe or sword probably has a shield, further reducing the spear damage.

So Klem:

ST 11 Shortsword 2d-1
DX 13(12) Large Shield (2) -1 DX

being charged by a spear will take an average of 5 hits from a one-handed spear, or 7 from a 2-handed spear. Still bad news, but not as bad as you were calculating. And the non-charge damage comparison becomes more like 2d-1 versus 1d-1, or 2d-2 versus 1d-2 (depending on whether the spear guy has a small shield or not).

[Kirk]

Yep, I don´t have easy access to my rulebooks and was remembering when we played in college, where spears were 1+2, then doubled for charge attacks.

Later additions seem to tone it down just a bit, to 1+1, making sword options slightly more viable vs. pole weapons.

The way we read the rules, you can't change your option until it is time for you to act, depending on what has happened and how far you moved. As a by product, this keeps things from becoming chaotic if anyone can change their option at any time during the turn.

So interpreted that way, not having a specific Move 1/2 and Defend option for an unengaged character moving against a pole weapon means that he is going to go first, and you just impaled yourself, without the benefit of even 4 dice to be hit. And I think SJ meant it to be that way, charging up against a pole weapon then suddenly trying to defend seems to defy momentum.

I do wish SJ would clarify how and when one can change an action (and consider the consequences if done differently than the way we read the rules), including which DX changes affect order of execution and which do not.

What I don't think works well is just bringing down the double damage to adding a die etc., which of course also weights things like javelins and spears over the larger pole weapons.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

The way we read the rules, you can't change your option until it is time for you to act, depending on what has happened and how far you moved. As a by product, this keeps things from becoming chaotic if anyone can change their option at any time during the turn.

It's not necessary to read it that way to prevent endless option-changing, because endless option changing doesn't happen: When a figure's turn to act comes, they need to commit to an option and do it. The figure they're attacking then has the option to Defend or Dodge if they haven't yet committed to an option and have moved 1/2 MA or less. The acting figure does not have the option to change what they're doing because their target is defending in response to their attack (that wouldn't even make sense).

Originally Posted by Kirk

So interpreted that way, not having a specific Move 1/2 and Defend option for an unengaged character moving against a pole weapon means that he is going to go first, and you just impaled yourself, without the benefit of even 4 dice to be hit. And I think SJ meant it to be that way, charging up against a pole weapon then suddenly trying to defend seems to defy momentum.

If SJ meant it not to be an option to Defend after moving 1/2 MA, why do you suppose the Changing Options section in Wizard and Advanced Melee explicitly say you can change your option to do Defend to meet changing conditions with "the only requirement" being you must have moved 1/2 MA or less?

[Kirk]

The way we see the rules is that (4) Actions follow (3) Movement, and the Changing Options sections states that you can change option after the movement part of a turn, therefore being in the Actions part of the turn, in which characters act in order of their DX.

When they therefore can Act, they can change the Action part of their option if it doesn't violate the movement requirement of the option they chose in the Movement portion of the turn.

If you can indeed change options without respect to DX as you say, why choose an option at all? What is the point? Why not just move and be done with it?

Additionally, as a practical aspect, what characters choose to do can alter their position in the now vague *order* of Actions. If I throw a bola, I get +2, but if I decide to attack with my sword, I don't. But then if I do that, my opponent changes his option to defend, then the wizard switches to a spell of clumsiness, which makes me slower, so I decide to throw the bola, and on and on.

I see nowhere a limit to the number of times someone can change their option, either, only that it is done after the Movement phase and it has to meet the movement requirement, and that they only end up executing one Action in the end.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Or just read the Changing Options rule and realize it already is an option.

Understood SKARG, I know what you are referencing, but as it is not actually printed that way under OPTIONS in my 1st edition copies of In The Labyrinth (white letters); which simply say:

Option II c: Dodge

Perhaps on the re-print, SJ might change it to: Options II c: Dodge or Defend

Or perhaps as KIRK and I were wondering if there was some other reason why it only offers Dodge as an Option on the list

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

The way we see the rules is that (4) Actions follow (3) Movement, and the Changing Options sections states that you can change option after the movement part of a turn, therefore being in the Actions part of the turn, in which characters act in order of their DX.

When they therefore can Act, they can change the Action part of their option if it doesn't violate the movement requirement of the option they chose in the Movement portion of the turn.

We're on the same page about all of that.

Originally Posted by Kirk

If you can indeed change options without respect to DX as you say, why choose an option at all? What is the point? Why not just move and be done with it?

As I wrote on the last thread where we discussed this,

1) You don't generally particularly need to declare an option during Movement, if you know the rules well enough. But the amount you move will dictate what you can do during the Action phase. I think it' mainly explained that you do it this way, to help new players learn what you will be able to do if you move 1, up to 1/2 MA, or up to full MA.

2) If you want to start by committing to Dodge or Defend right from the start (might be useful if you think you may be about to be attacked by someone you wouldn't even be aware of - an arrow from behind, maybe? Or to hope it gets foes to choose to avoid you and attack someone else?).

3) You want to help communicate other players what your intention is, so they can coordinate with you.

4) So the GM can correct you if you make a mistake (e.g. you say you mean to Attack but you move 4 and your MA is 6 - the GM could catch it and let you move one less instead of telling you later you can't attack).

Originally Posted by Kirk

Additionally, as a practical aspect, what characters choose to do can alter their position in the now vague *order* of Actions. If I throw a bola, I get +2, but if I decide to attack with my sword, I don't.

This seems like a separate issue and a good reason not to have DX modifiers for the action taken affect the adjDX for purposes of when a character acts. Thrown Weapons is especially silly since anyone with that talent and Thrown Weapons can ready and throw on the same turn, so would have potentially two action points. Not to mention if you also add in the penalties for Aimed Shots and range to target.

(When would it end? GM: Who's next? Ok, next we have Sally if she's aiming at Klogg and not making an Aimed Shot at anyone withing 2 megahexes, or Boris if he's throwing an axe at anyone at range 4 or less. Or Samuel if he's throwing his magic +1 DX spear at anyone at range 6 or less (or if he's throwing a non-magical weapon at anyone at range 5 or less), or David if he's attacking that orc lying on the ground at +4. Any of you who want to do that, roll one die to see who actually goes next...)

Originally Posted by Kirk

But then if I do that, my opponent changes his option to defend, then the wizard switches to a spell of clumsiness, which makes me slower, so I decide to throw the bola, and on and on.

No. If it's your turn to act, you have to say what you do, and do that. If your target defends, you roll 4 dice to hit. That's all.

If the wizard then casts a spell, that would be at a later place in the action sequence, because it was your turn to act, and will be too late to affect your action.

Originally Posted by Kirk

I see nowhere a limit to the number of times someone can change their option, either, only that it is done after the Movement phase and it has to meet the movement requirement, and that they only end up executing one Action in the end.

There is no limit on the number of times, but there is no reason to do so except in reaction to something that is happening, and when you do so, that ends it.

As each player's turn to act comes, they commit to an action and a target. People can change their option in reaction to that (mainly the only reason to do so at that point would be for the target of an attack that is happening to Defend or Dodge against that attack - if they do, they've committed to that option for the rest of the turn). Then the next figure to act commits to an action. That's about it.

It's really very simple. Even reacting to an attack by changing to Dodge or Defend is pretty rare, because mostly fighters want to Attack not Defend, and people who want to Dodge or Defend usually figure that out by the end of the Movement phase anyway.