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 09-12-2018, 11:24 AM   #41
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Facing

Having played the game for many years, it seems like people are worried about a problem that very rarely happened in our play. It's not rocket science to move so that you aren't exposing yourself to a run-around attack. If you take away the possibility, then maneuver becomes less interesting, not because side attacks happen a lot, but because you want to not move so foolishly so as to let them happen.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 08:04 AM   #42
ParadoxGames
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg View Post
Having played the game for many years, it seems like people are worried about a problem that very rarely happened in our play. It's not rocket science to move so that you aren't exposing yourself to a run-around attack. If you take away the possibility, then maneuver becomes less interesting, not because side attacks happen a lot, but because you want to not move so foolishly so as to let them happen.
I agree with you. The rules are designed to get you to think strategically WITHIN the nature of the rules.
ParadoxGames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 09:30 AM   #43
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Facing

I don't think irrational 'run-around' attacks are really a thing in TFT. I can't remember when I've seen it done. The only arguments I've seen suggesting this is a problem were from people who mis-interpreted the rules. I don't think you could actually pull it off unless the target presented a side facing toward you at close range.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 06:36 PM   #44
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
I don't think irrational 'run-around' attacks are really a thing in TFT. I can't remember when I've seen it done. The only arguments I've seen suggesting this is a problem were from people who mis-interpreted the rules. I don't think you could actually pull it off unless the target presented a side facing toward you at close range.
Might not happen a lot in your games but it does happen. Last example I can think of was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmCHVO41MM
At 4:40ish, SJ could have been attacked in rear twice by running around moves after he engaged a little bit carelessly. SJ did point this out as a possibility, but didn't bother to count since it was a very casual game. And with almost no armor, SJ's guys would have been hit first and most likely gotten the -2DX mod or a possible knock down and that would drastically have changed the outcome.

So even an old fox needs to take that extra time to count. And I am not sure that is the right kind of tactical thinking I want to do. I feel it is kind of artificial and un realistic. I would rather have a more exciting map, with more options and think about intuitive actions with advantages and disadvantage. Counting hexes each turn is just a repetitive chore for me.

But I do agree that it is part of the TFT nostalgic experience. But it is a bad/tricky/gamey part in my opinion. So at least an alternative should be there as an optional rule or part of the simple rules. Otherwise new players (and possibly old players that lose their concentration or focus) will fall for gamey tactics. Not exactly a good first impression.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 06:58 PM   #45
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
I think the scenario everyone dislikes is that someone runs forward, then the other guy runs around him and attacks from the side. But maybe people are OK if someone gets mugged because someone he didn't know about charged him from behind.

If you wanted to ban the first and not the second then you could have a rule that first side to move gets a free rotate to follow someone who started their movement to their front, or if they make a 3/IQ roll to realise someone's coming up behind them. It might take a bit of thought and some technical writing skills to make it clear but it would probably work.
I like this idea with a "Perception" test. The mugging scenario should probably be solved with a surprise turn, or a surprise turn if you fail your "perception" or they succeed with their move silently movement.

I also likes Rick's -2DX penalty for a shift of facing.

Another possible solution would be to use IQ for initiative, which goes well with the talent Tactics and Strategy that plays off of IQ. The big advantage would be that IQ hardly ever change in a fight. And one could solve the facing dilemma by including it in the actions, like shift 60 degrees and attack if you move half MA or less. Then a frontal, run around to the side, attacker would have to win initiative, have a good MA and be smarter than the opponent.

IQ is slightly less important now that you can buy talents for XP without raising your IQ. And at the same time more important with the expertise talents (but only for some specific IQ levels).

One could also allow the character who moves first, but choses to stand still, a post move facing change.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 08:38 PM   #46
larsdangly
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
Might not happen a lot in your games but it does happen. Last example I can think of was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmCHVO41MM
At 4:40ish, SJ could have been attacked in rear twice by running around moves after he engaged a little bit carelessly. SJ did point this out as a possibility, but didn't bother to count since it was a very casual game. And with almost no armor, SJ's guys would have been hit first and most likely gotten the -2DX mod or a possible knock down and that would drastically have changed the outcome.

So even an old fox needs to take that extra time to count. And I am not sure that is the right kind of tactical thinking I want to do. I feel it is kind of artificial and un realistic. I would rather have a more exciting map, with more options and think about intuitive actions with advantages and disadvantage. Counting hexes each turn is just a repetitive chore for me.

But I do agree that it is part of the TFT nostalgic experience. But it is a bad/tricky/gamey part in my opinion. So at least an alternative should be there as an optional rule or part of the simple rules. Otherwise new players (and possibly old players that lose their concentration or focus) will fall for gamey tactics. Not exactly a good first impression.
I wouldn't call that a case of an 'irrational' run-around opportunity. The target in this case presented an opening because he/she wanted to engage a specific hex side of another figure. Without that constraint, he or she never would have presented that facing (other than through a gross mistake) and therefore the opportunity would not have come up. What I would count as an 'irrational' case would be some example where one figure can just run around the side of another figure as they approach each other. That is something I don't think can happen without one of them doing something ridiculous.
larsdangly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 09:53 AM   #47
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
I wouldn't call that a case of an 'irrational' run-around opportunity. The target in this case presented an opening because he/she wanted to engage a specific hex side of another figure. Without that constraint, he or she never would have presented that facing (other than through a gross mistake) and therefore the opportunity would not have come up. What I would count as an 'irrational' case would be some example where one figure can just run around the side of another figure as they approach each other. That is something I don't think can happen without one of them doing something ridiculous.
Yes. Steve was playing an intro demo game against someone who (perhaps was acting, for the sake of entirely-ignorant audience, as if?) he had very little grasp of the rules, and Steve left him needless openings, such as his figure on the left flank who left his left side available for no reason.

i.e. The correct move would be for Steve's left-flank to face one side more left, and for his third figure to go stand two hexes south of his middle figure, facing SE, which would present a complete wall of Front-only hexes all across the Melee map.
Skarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 08:20 PM   #48
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg View Post
The mugging scenario should probably be solved with a surprise turn, or a surprise turn if you fail your "perception" or they succeed with their move silently movement.
We were I think talking about a scenario where this happens in the middle of a fight - other figures might see the mugger, but the muggee, who is facing the other way, doesn't. So a surprise turn isn't appropriate. But I also think it isn't necessary: simply getting hit in the back is bad enough.

The perception roll might be easier if someone with Tactics shouts a warning.

Quote:
I also likes Rick's -2DX penalty for a shift of facing.
Even -1 DX would probably be enough to stop trivial rotations. Or -1 DX per hexside.

Quote:
Another possible solution would be to use IQ for initiative
This would require an opposed roll system for TFT? Which admittedly it probably needs. But I don't think it solves this problem.
David Bofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2018, 02:17 PM   #49
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
We were I think talking about a scenario where this happens in the middle of a fight - other figures might see the mugger, but the muggee, who is facing the other way, doesn't. So a surprise turn isn't appropriate. But I also think it isn't necessary: simply getting hit in the back is bad enough.

The perception roll might be easier if someone with Tactics shouts a warning.



Even -1 DX would probably be enough to stop trivial rotations. Or -1 DX per hexside.



This would require an opposed roll system for TFT? Which admittedly it probably needs. But I don't think it solves this problem.
And Tacticians giving their side perception bonuses in combat is a great idea. :-)

I like the -1DX per hex side turned.

I didn't mean for an opposed IQ roll for who gets initiative, I mean to use IQ instead of DX for action or turn order. Since IQ doesn't change as much as DX during the turn.
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2018, 02:24 PM   #50
Nils_Lindeberg
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Default Re: Facing

Quote:
Originally Posted by larsdangly View Post
I wouldn't call that a case of an 'irrational' run-around opportunity. The target in this case presented an opening because he/she wanted to engage a specific hex side of another figure. Without that constraint, he or she never would have presented that facing (other than through a gross mistake) and therefore the opportunity would not have come up. What I would count as an 'irrational' case would be some example where one figure can just run around the side of another figure as they approach each other. That is something I don't think can happen without one of them doing something ridiculous.
If SJ had counted the hexes or not deliberately left his opponent an opening he could easily have avoided the top situation by a 60 degree shift and still been able to attack the preferred hex side. And he could have avoided the other possibility too, but lost the three against one advantage or his own possible flanking bonuses. But usually it is not worth it to trade a side attack for a rear attack on one self.

But the situation was less strange than the straight one on one, that starts with a rear or side attack as the first attack. :-)
Nils_Lindeberg is offline   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 02:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.