Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2018, 06:33 PM   #21
Helborn
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Read the turn by turn example in wizard. NO -3 DX from low ST caused by fatigue. Only by physical damage.

Now what happens when there is a combination of fatigue and damage......

However, in the example the opposing wizard does have a combination and no -3 DX
__________________
Helborn

Last edited by Helborn; 10-14-2018 at 06:37 PM. Reason: Added thought
Helborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 06:56 PM   #22
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

That is helpful and probably means the intent was not to impose penalties as if fatigue was like injuries (despite the text to the contrary). That said, for the last ~40 years the advanced melee combat example included a javelin 'jab' that violates a clear rule, so who knows...
larsdangly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 07:01 PM   #23
hcobb
 
hcobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
That said, for the last ~40 years the advanced melee combat example included a javelin 'jab' that violates a clear rule, so who knows...
Clarified at the new ITL127.
__________________
-HJC
hcobb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 07:56 PM   #24
ecz
 
ecz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helborn View Post
Read the turn by turn example in wizard. NO -3 DX from low ST caused by fatigue. Only by physical damage.

Now what happens when there is a combination of fatigue and damage......

However, in the example the opposing wizard does have a combination and no -3 DX
I would to not take too seriously THAT combat example. In the last four lines there are at least two major errors

1) the wizard fall inconscious at ST 1 but per new rules it should happen at ST zero

2) the already inconscious wizard is killed by an illusion, when all the system of the illusion spell implies that the target of a illusion must see it and believe it is real threat. In fact a mindless being (or who cannot see the illusion), is unaffected.
hence also who is inconscious (= at the moment mindless) should be not a legal target of an illusory attack
__________________
VASLeague Tournament Director
www.vasleague.org
ecz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 07:57 AM   #25
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Yes, there are a number of inconsistencies like that in the beta copy we saw. But I still agree that the Wizard combat example is probably the closest we will have to an 'official' ruling until/unless some future FAQ entry addresses the point.
larsdangly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 01:16 AM   #26
amenditman
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Florida Peninsula, Earth, Sol Sytem
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Very ambiguous. Double checked the Advanced Melee Combat Example because the wizard takes damage from the troll. It says during Turn 5 (ITL p129),

"It strikes at Kov, rolling a 6 to hit despite the Blur! The troll then rolls for damage, getting a 4 on 2 dice. Kov takes 4 hits. His ST is now 5 . . . 4 for the wounds, and 1 for the Blur spell, were lost this turn."

But the next turn the combat ends and the wizard does not attempt to attack or cast a spell, so we are still left to wonder. Seems like they might have been going for the 5 hits in one turn DX penalty, but they don't get there.
amenditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 09:27 AM   #27
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

It is all very ambiguous, but personally I apply the reaction to injury rules uniformly, in part because it is kind of interesting to have wizards reacting in meaningful ways to their own big spells, but mostly because I think it is more in keeping with the simplicity and abstraction of TFT to always make the most parsimonious ruling - in this case treating all damage the same.
larsdangly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 03:25 PM   #28
ajardoor
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
As for the -3DX at 3 ST or less... I think that yes, it does apply, as that's just an e8ffect of your ST being that low, not a one-time reaction to injury. Compare the wording:

"A figure that takes 5 or more hits in one turn has its DX adjusted -2 for its next action (spell, attack, etc.)."

"A figure that takes 8 or more hits in one turn immediately
falls down."

"Any figure whose ST is reduced to 3 or less has an extra -3 DX for the rest of the combat."

Seems pretty clear to me there where the effects in question are listed. No?
This. Spellcasting fatigue can't knock you down or give you shock, but enough of it will tire you out and leave you woozy. That's an interesting dramatic rules, since it makes combat magic just risky enough - do you blast away on your opening turns and court disaster (making yourself a sitting duck for any warrior who escaped your barrage)? I do like the idea that combat magic is "the big gun with only one shot".
ajardoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 03:35 PM   #29
amenditman
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Florida Peninsula, Earth, Sol Sytem
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Compare the wording:

"A figure that takes 5 or more hits in one turn has its DX adjusted -2 for its next action (spell, attack, etc.)."

"A figure that takes 8 or more hits in one turn immediately
falls down."

"Any figure whose ST is reduced to 3 or less has an extra -3 DX for the rest of the combat."

Seems pretty clear to me there where the effects in question are listed. No?
I certainly will be playing it with the -3 DX penalty for ST 3 or less unless/until it is defined as other than this. Very clear that they are separating Hits and ST in the above quotes.

Thanks everyone, Skarg
amenditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 07:48 PM   #30
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: ST fatigue and "reaction to injury"

Agreed; a good ruling!
larsdangly is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.